• 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!

The Free Lunch

So now there are 2 of you making the same nonsensical claim. What part of household is eluding you? Are you really claiming the children DIRECTLY receive checks or cards?

Actually there some cases where mom gets med coverage as well and figured in SNAP calcs but it is becoming less and less the case. But if they do receive SNAP they have to be working, looking for work or in training for work. Bottom line is that there is fraud and always will be. But I'd rather feed and give med to kids knowing some adults are taking advantage rather than letting the kids starve and go without min med coverage. Wouldn't you?
 
Well, you're about at the end of my obtuseness tolerance as well so we both might want to carry from now on.

My POINT is that it is NOT the children who are falsely claiming from welfare. It is the parents. How is this going over your head by such a large margin? If your imaginary lawyer got you a 50 year sentence for littering, who would be the one at fault? You - or your stupid lawyer?



No, I'm being as honest as I can. I could easily insult both your intelligence and your honesty based on what you posted in this thread, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. But such license is not perpetual

For example, you originally asked about who the recipients were, and now you've changed that to "direct recipients". Such changes do not change the fact that the majority of the money goes to supporting children. Arguing that things are done on "behalf" of children is merely arguing the mechanics, and not the meat of the matter. I have had arguments made by lawyers "on my behalf". That doesn't mean that I'm not the one who benefitted from those arguments.
 
Agreed. I hate stories like this as they are taking assistance away from people who actually need it.
I saw one of her videos that's on the net. And to be fair she sure seemed pretty damned hungry to me. :shock:
 
Are you sure? Do the parents get zero and the money is 100% designated for the exclusive use of the children? I seriously doubt that.

I met a hooker (not even classy enough to be an Escort) in MacDonalds last week. She told me she gets disability for her ADHD "but I'm OK now but as long as they don't know it I'll keep getting my check". She doesn't even have a child! What happened next is none of your business.

You and your cohort, topless Sangha are playing semantics while America burns. In order to be able to help THOSE IN NEED without all the resulting discontent from those whoi pick up the tab, welfare recepients should be spied on just like the IRS spies on taxpayers. And they do (first hand info). They call it a "Lifestyle Audit" and they actually check out your business, your house, your car etc. to see if you are living within your declared means. It's not even the savings that would matter - it's the respect for the system.


Lol no of course not. But children have to have a representative payee which is the parent. The parent doesn't receive medical and is not included in calculations of how much is received in SNAP or cash. Do some parent buy food and spend the cash on themselves? Yes. But how can you police that situation?
 
Well, you're about at the end of my obtuseness tolerance as well so we both might want to carry from now on.

My POINT is that it is NOT the children who are falsely claiming from welfare. It is the parents. How is this going over your head by such a large margin? If your imaginary lawyer got you a 50 year sentence for littering, who would be the one at fault? You - or your stupid lawyer?

It would be both our faults

I understand your point, but you seem to think that I must adhere to addressing your points and not making any of my own. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

You asked about how many liars received welfare. I answered that question, and then made *my* point - that most welfare recipients are young children. This is a well-established fact.

Since then, you've gone on about people who lie when applying for benefits. Certainly, such people do exist. No one here has denied that.

However, that doesn't change the fact that most welfare recipients are children - young children. I do not know why my mentioning this excites you so.
 
Are you sure? Do the parents get zero and the money is 100% designated for the exclusive use of the children? I seriously doubt that.

I met a hooker (not even classy enough to be an Escort) in MacDonalds last week. She told me she gets disability for her ADHD "but I'm OK now but as long as they don't know it I'll keep getting my check". She doesn't even have a child! What happened next is none of your business.

You and your cohort, topless Sangha are playing semantics while America burns. In order to be able to help THOSE IN NEED without all the resulting discontent from those whoi pick up the tab, welfare recepients should be spied on just like the IRS spies on taxpayers. And they do (first hand info). They call it a "Lifestyle Audit" and they actually check out your business, your house, your car etc. to see if you are living within your declared means. It's not even the savings that would matter - it's the respect for the system.

Since you insist on being abusive, I see no reason to assume that your gross distortions of fact were anything other than deliberate attempts to deceive.

For example, you claimed that the woman in the OP was not receiving any punishment at all for her welfare fraud, even though you knew it was not true. And now, you're whining about how the govt does not "spy" on welfare recipients when the truth is, they do.

But the funniest of all is how you're now whining about how other people should have "respect for the system" when you have made countless posts demonstrating your own lack of respect for it
 
Yes, that is my point. Rigid enforcement to insure the money goes for its intended purpose so we stop hearing calls for withdrawal of aid.


Actually there some cases where mom gets med coverage as well and figured in SNAP calcs but it is becoming less and less the case. But if they do receive SNAP they have to be working, looking for work or in training for work. Bottom line is that there is fraud and always will be. But I'd rather feed and give med to kids knowing some adults are taking advantage rather than letting the kids starve and go without min med coverage. Wouldn't you?
 
Hogwash. Total hogwash.

My point and purpose from the start has been to protect the deserving by punishing the frauds.

Since you are sch a know-it-all, please tell me what portion of the 8 month sentence was for welfare fraud.

When I feel you are entitled to make points of your own, I'll send you a notice and have your diapers laundered. Until them, its all about MY points.



Since you insist on being abusive, I see no reason to assume that your gross distortions of fact were anything other than deliberate attempts to deceive.

For example, you claimed that the woman in the OP was not receiving any punishment at all for her welfare fraud, even though you knew it was not true. And now, you're whining about how the govt does not "spy" on welfare recipients when the truth is, they do.

But the funniest of all is how you're now whining about how other people should have "respect for the system" when you have made countless posts demonstrating your own lack of respect for it

It would be both our faults

I understand your point, but you seem to think that I must adhere to addressing your points and not making any of my own. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

You asked about how many liars received welfare. I answered that question, and then made *my* point - that most welfare recipients are young children. This is a well-established fact.

Since then, you've gone on about people who lie when applying for benefits. Certainly, such people do exist. No one here has denied that.

However, that doesn't change the fact that most welfare recipients are children - young children. I do not know why my mentioning this excites you so.
 
Are you sure? Do the parents get zero and the money is 100% designated for the exclusive use of the children? I seriously doubt that.

I met a hooker (not even classy enough to be an Escort) in MacDonalds last week. She told me she gets disability for her ADHD "but I'm OK now but as long as they don't know it I'll keep getting my check". She doesn't even have a child! What happened next is none of your business.

You and your cohort, topless Sangha are playing semantics while America burns. In order to be able to help THOSE IN NEED without all the resulting discontent from those whoi pick up the tab, welfare recepients should be spied on just like the IRS spies on taxpayers. And they do (first hand info). They call it a "Lifestyle Audit" and they actually check out your business, your house, your car etc. to see if you are living within your declared means. It's not even the savings that would matter - it's the respect for the system.

Yea I know there is fraud. No one is claiming otherwise. But whatcha gonna do? Our manpower is short because everyone wants the state workers head count reduced, their pay reduced but still expect expedient competent services. Ya get what you pay for.
 
Hogwash. Total hogwash.

My point and purpose from the start has been to protect the deserving by punishing the frauds.

Since you are sch a know-it-all, please tell me what portion of the 8 month sentence was for welfare fraud.

When I feel you are entitled to make points of your own, I'll send you a notice and have your diapers laundered. Until them, its all about MY points.

Hogwash

From nearly the very beginning, you have been misrepresenting the facts, beginning with your claim that the woman received no charge as a result of her welfare fraud.
 
Everyone? That's a pretty high percentage. Are you sure? Obviously I'm in favor of hiring more enforcement so at best, almost everyone is the best you can claim and even then....



Yea I know there is fraud. No one is claiming otherwise. But whatcha gonna do? Our manpower is short because everyone wants the state workers head count reduced, their pay reduced but still expect expedient competent services. Ya get what you pay for.
 
Yea I know there is fraud. No one is claiming otherwise. But whatcha gonna do? Our manpower is short because everyone wants the state workers head count reduced, their pay reduced but still expect expedient competent services. Ya get what you pay for.

In addition, money spent on enforcement is money that is not spent on helping children.

Some states have recently taken to testing recipients for drug use, even though history shows that such programs are a waste of money.
 
Everyone? That's a pretty high percentage. Are you sure? Obviously I'm in favor of hiring more enforcement so at best, almost everyone is the best you can claim and even then....

That claim is more accurate than the one you made about how the woman received no charge relating to her welfare fraud.

Internet law - RationalWiki
 
So, why don't you prove your point by answering my question. I'll confess that I misread the article and didn't see the fraud chargesmentiuon. Boo-****ing-Hoo. Even geniuses make mistakes.

So, how long did she get for the welfare fraud and then I can humbly acknowledge your brilliance.





((In the distance, a cat meowed))



Hogwash

From nearly the very beginning, you have been misrepresenting the facts, beginning with your claim that the woman received no charge as a result of her welfare fraud.
 
So, why don't you prove your point by answering my question. I'll confess that I misread the article and didn't see the fraud chargesmentiuon. Boo-****ing-Hoo. Even geniuses make mistakes.

So, how long did she get for the welfare fraud and then I can humbly acknowledge your brilliance.





((In the distance, a cat meowed))

I have made no claim about the seriousness of the charge. You have

So you're the one with the burden of making your case.

I'll wait

:coffeepap:

Oh, and about your "mistake":roll: Here's what you said about that:

I just can't trick you can I?
 
OK, you win.

Koenig says Mills, in handing down the sentence, seemed to imply the most grievous of Wright's crimes were defrauding the state to receive welfare and tax evasion, not the prostitution counts.

But I'm still a better person than you are and I have a shirt.



I have made no claim about the seriousness of the charge. You have

So you're the one with the burden of making your case.

I'll wait

:coffeepap:

Oh, and about your "mistake":roll: Here's what you said about that:
 
OK, you win.

Koenig says Mills, in handing down the sentence, seemed to imply the most grievous of Wright's crimes were defrauding the state to receive welfare and tax evasion, not the prostitution counts.

But I'm still a better person than you are and I have a shirt.

Yeah, because that's how we know who the best people are - by the t-shirts they're wearing :lamo

dirty_old_man_doggie_t_shirt-rae62519281754a2da71a951943399136_v9w7f_8byvr_216.jpg
 
Yeah, because that's how we know who the best people are - by the t-shirts they're wearing :lamo

dirty_old_man_doggie_t_shirt-rae62519281754a2da71a951943399136_v9w7f_8byvr_216.jpg

Lmao! Good one. The thing I've noticed about many posters on here, once they fail to make a case they resort to personal attacks.
 
Lmao! Good one. The thing I've noticed about many posters on here, once they fail to make a case they resort to personal attacks.

TBF, Speckle's a decent person, if a little tetchy at times. But I believe in giving slack to those of us who are more....ummm...."experienced?"

AcidTest2front-th.jpg
 
Honestly, did you take me seriously? Did you see a personal attack? Like, don't you people have any sense of humor?

I';m quite capable of being insulting. In fact, I'm very good at it. I don't do it because I believe in civil discourse. I'm perplexed that this wasn't obvious. When somebody notes your avatar is not wearing a shirt - you're supposed to realize that this is hardly a real attack. Or do you view "hogwash" as a genuine insult?

Tetchy? Well, I'll be hornswoggled.

images-4.jpeg


Lmao! Good one. The thing I've noticed about many posters on here, once they fail to make a case they resort to personal attacks.

Yeah, because that's how we know who the best people are - by the t-shirts they're wearing :lamo

dirty_old_man_doggie_t_shirt-rae62519281754a2da71a951943399136_v9w7f_8byvr_216.jpg

TBF, Speckle's a decent person, if a little tetchy at times. But I believe in giving slack to those of us who are more....ummm...."experienced?"

AcidTest2front-th.jpg
 
Honestly, did you take me seriously? Did you see a personal attack? Like, don't you people have any sense of humor?

I';m quite capable of being insulting. In fact, I'm very good at it. I don't do it because I believe in civil discourse. I'm perplexed that this wasn't obvious. When somebody notes your avatar is not wearing a shirt - you're supposed to realize that this is hardly a real attack. Or do you view "hogwash" as a genuine insult?

Tetchy? Well, I'll be hornswoggled.

Would it make you feel better if I told you that I never take you seriously?

and to think that you said I have no sense of humor....why, I never!!
 
Lol no of course not. But children have to have a representative payee which is the parent. The parent doesn't receive medical and is not included in calculations of how much is received in SNAP or cash. Do some parent buy food and spend the cash on themselves? Yes. But how can you police that situation?

so having kids dismisses the parents for wrong or illegal behavior so the message you are sending is as long as you have a child go ahead and behave wrongly or illegally. it is also an encouragement to have children
 
TBF, Speckle's a decent person, if a little tetchy at times. But I believe in giving slack to those of us who are more....ummm...."experienced?"

AcidTest2front-th.jpg

actually he's one of my favorite posters. He has gift for humorous turn of phrases. But I've noticed he turns it off as quickly as turning it on. OscarB is funny too. Really enjoy his. I enjoy yours too, you seem to be well informed and intelligent as many here are. Have a good weekend. Gotta fire that grill up before the rain returns :)
 
I agree that EBT surpluses should be either zeroed out or the surplus amount deducted from the next moth's allotment. Which couldn't be tracked if paper stamps were still used. Of course if this were the rule they'd just be sure to deplete it every month to avoid losing it. Like state agencies do at the end of each fiscal year. Another reason i feel we shouldnt go back to paper stamps is that there are a lot of hard working single parents below the Fed Poverty Level who depend on SNAP to supplement their food budget. Why subject them to the humiliation that paper stamps cause?

The purpose of public assistance to ensure someone doesn't go hungry. Humiliation shouldn't even be concern with those who administer the program. The EBT card system has allowed what should be a program to help those in need into a joke that is soaked in fraud. The moron who resides as the Mass Governor had the nerve to complain when there was legislation being discussed to restrict where EBT cards can be used. Places like nail salons and the like. The tool had the nerve to actually, "They should be allowed there, what if the benefits recipient has a job interview."

But I'll agree to forgo the food stamps altogether if they bring back state run pantry that those on assistance can pick their weekly sustenance. That way you ensure they're getting the required nutrition.
 
Back
Top Bottom