• 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!

Court rejects secrecy for food stamp numbers

Rocketman

Rocketman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2012
Messages
5,660
Reaction score
1,252
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
A federal appeals court has rejected the Obama Administration's attempt to keep secret the government's data on how much individual retailers take in from the food stamp program.

In a ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit turned down the U.S. Department of Agriculture's arguments that a provision in federal law protecting retailers' application information from disclosure also barred disclosure of how much the feds pay out to specific businesses.

"Because the retailer spending information is not 'submit[ted]' by 'an applicant retail food store or wholesale food concern...' the information is not exempt from disclosure. The department, not any retailer, generates the information, and the underlying data is 'obtained' from third-party payment processors, not from individual retailers," Chief Judge William Jay Riley wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Steven Colloton and Jane Kelly.

(Also on POLITICO: The new faces of food stamps)

The judges acted on an appeal filed by South Dakota's Argus Leader newspaper after the USDA turned down the paper's Freedom of Information Act request for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments to individual retailers on an annual basis from 2005 to 2010. A district court judge agreed with the federal government's argument that part of the food stamp program statute barred such disclosure, making the data exempt from FOIA.

Court rejects Obama Administration secrecy on food stamps - POLITICO.com
 
Yep. With over $70 billion of public funds, annually, pumped into the great unknown - what could possibly go wrong without any public accounting system? What SNAP fraud could possibly exist in a system that has absolutely no public reporting requirements?
 
Huge. Millions in snap funds are funneled into each BJs Wholesale club in my region annually. Millions. Per club. It's documented.

And many of the members using EBT are making those purchases with tax free business accounts.

Which, currently, is inexplicably completely legal. Top EBT items are bottled water cases (great resale item), 36 count snickers bars (another great resale item), and monster energy drink.



Millions. Per store in my region.
 
KevinKohler said:
Huge. Millions in snap funds are funneled into each BJs Wholesale club in my region annually. Millions. Per club. It's documented.

And many of the members using EBT are making those purchases with tax free business accounts.

Which, currently, is inexplicably completely legal. Top EBT items are bottled water cases (great resale item), 36 count snickers bars (another great resale item), and monster energy drink.



Millions. Per store in my region.
Click to expand...

Link please.
 
Deuce said:
Link please.
Click to expand...

There is no link, BJs is a private company, as such, the breakdown of their business is not made public ally available.

I know it because it's my job to know. Just gonna have to take my word. Sorry.
 
Rocketman said:
A federal appeals court has rejected the Obama Administration's attempt to keep secret the government's data on how much individual retailers take in from the food stamp program.

In a ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit turned down the U.S. Department of Agriculture's arguments that a provision in federal law protecting retailers' application information from disclosure also barred disclosure of how much the feds pay out to specific businesses.

"Because the retailer spending information is not 'submit[ted]' by 'an applicant retail food store or wholesale food concern...' the information is not exempt from disclosure. The department, not any retailer, generates the information, and the underlying data is 'obtained' from third-party payment processors, not from individual retailers," Chief Judge William Jay Riley wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Steven Colloton and Jane Kelly.

(Also on POLITICO: The new faces of food stamps)

The judges acted on an appeal filed by South Dakota's Argus Leader newspaper after the USDA turned down the paper's Freedom of Information Act request for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program payments to individual retailers on an annual basis from 2005 to 2010. A district court judge agreed with the federal government's argument that part of the food stamp program statute barred such disclosure, making the data exempt from FOIA.

Court rejects Obama Administration secrecy on food stamps - POLITICO.com
Click to expand...

In light of things like this, it is amazing how conservatives can justify corporate money in politics.
 
Dezaad said:
In light of things like this, it is amazing how conservatives can justify corporate money in politics.
Click to expand...

no worse than the millions and millions of dollars pumped to the democratic party by unions even though not all the people in the union agree with it.
 
ludin said:
no worse than the millions and millions of dollars pumped to the democratic party by unions even though not all the people in the union agree with it.
Click to expand...

Except that it is corporate money that puts things like the OP in motion, which is on topic, and not union money, which is therefore off topic. Conservative's answer to the problem of money in politics was what? To have crippled the minor faction and to have strengthened the more diabolical faction. Pathetic.
 
Dezaad said:
Except that it is corporate money that puts things like the OP in motion, which is on topic, and not union money, which is therefore off topic. Conservative's answer to the problem of money in politics was what? To have crippled the minor faction and to have strengthened the more diabolical faction. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Interesting that quite a few conservatives think lobbyists should be banned. I think you need to redefine your definition of 'conservatives'.
 
GottaGo said:
Interesting that quite a few conservatives think lobbyists should be banned. I think you need to redefine your definition of 'conservatives'.
Click to expand...

Well, since Obama agrees that lobbying should be banned, we ought to be able to get this done.
 
Dezaad said:
Well, since Obama agrees that lobbying should be banned, we ought to be able to get this done.
Click to expand...

Obama supports lobbying.
 
Dezaad said:
Yes, the court ruled with the conservative faction on this matter. I am well aware of it.
Click to expand...

Conservatives are for free speech and liberals are not? Wow, not many of you will be this brutally honest.
 
scatt said:
Conservatives are for free speech and liberals are not? Wow, not many of you will be this brutally honest.
Click to expand...

Letting money rule politics has zero to do with free speech.
 
scatt said:
Not at all, I am not a republican (or a democrat).



Spending money is a form of speech. This is not up for debate.
Click to expand...

You are still a conservative, whether you are a Republican or not. Spending money is not free speech, and it is up for debate.
 
Dezaad said:
Well, since Obama agrees that lobbying should be banned, we ought to be able to get this done.
Click to expand...

I'd like to think so. But considering past track records of getting things done by ALL parties involved, maybe in the year 2050.... *sarcasm included*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom