« previous   misc   next »

Another Welfare Abuse Example....Dems say 'Nothing wrong here


By AverageBear   Follow   Sun, 6 Jan 2013, 4:06am PST   6,252 views   112 comments
Watch (1)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (6)  

....."Let’s not forget how the “scrubbing” began. Granny [LIZ} Warren’s daughter filed a lawsuit claiming the DTA hadn’t been proactive enough in registering the state’s assorted loafers and layabouts to vote for her carpetbagging fake-Indian mom. Then — bingo, the hacks located $274,000 for mailings, complete with post-paid envelopes for the gimme girls and guys to send back their voter registrations.

Have you ever gotten a post-paid envelope from the commonwealth? No, I didn’t think so. They’re not for taxpayers, just for the non-working classes to take part in a Democratic voter-registration drive."......

The Patrick administration has known about these appalling EBT numbers for months now. They were only released after this newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request. Which is the same way it was revealed that Lt. Gov. Tim Murray was doing 108 mph when he mysteriously crashed his state vehicle in November 2011."....

Guess what this revealed? Most likely, these fake welfare frauds are collecting from other states. Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow reform to uncover waste. This is what you get when democrats overwhelmingly run a 'one party state'...

...."Those 19,000 MIA’s collect — based on an average of $400 a month — $91 million a year. That’s the estimate of Rep. Shauna O’Connell (R-Taunton). But the governor Friday went into his best pooh-pooh mode.

“That may not be indicative of a problem,” he said with a straight face. “We’ll know when we do the scrubbing.”.......

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/howie_carr/2013/01/you_can%E2%80%99t_%E2%80%98scrub%E2%80%99_ebt_mess_dirty_rag

« First     « Previous     Comments 33-72 of 112     Next »     Last »

The Professor   Fri, 1 Feb 2013, 2:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike (1)     Comment 33

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

There is little incentive to better yourself when you can net more from welfare than working.

Quigley   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 9:17am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 34

Welfare is keeping the workers from the farms: hence the need for "agricultural worker programs" where we import Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans will not do. If you're living in some city and can't feed yourself, there should be an office where you can sign up to get transportation to a farm where they will work and feed you and your kids.
C'mon! The plantation needs its workers back!

AverageBear   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 9:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 35

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?


There is little incentive to better yourself when you can net more from welfare than working.

-----------------------------------------------
I agree. Those that need help (food, shelter, clothing. retraining) should get all of those things. They should NOT BE GETTING A FRICKEN' EBT CREDIT CARD (AKA 'CASH') to spend tax payers $$ as they see fit (nail salons, booze, hookers, strip joints, bail)....

Apparently, most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH. They should be entitled to food/shelter/clothing/training that they should some how 'show up' and confirm their identity, and intentions. It's been proven that the democrat-run state of Mass has NO INTENTION whatsoever of confirming who is getting EBT $$, where it's going, and doesn't care how it's being spent...

AverageBear   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 10:04am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 36

Bellingham Bill says

zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.

-------------------------------------
When did i ever mention 'zero tolerance'?? What's asinine is giving people on welfare CASH to do whatever they want with it. What they should be given is food/clothing/shelter/retraining. Make them show up for it, confirm their identity for it. Give them enough to get back on their feet, but not too much to enjoy or sustain a free/easy lifestyle. (Obama's Antie Zetiuni comes to mind)....An EBT card isn't needed for these things.

Vicente   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 10:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 37

AverageBear says

most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH.

Fine. I think YOU shouldn't be entitled to CASH either. Let's have someone else determine what you NEED. You think you need money for soy-based infant formula? No, what you need is Cheerios and milk. I don't care that your whole family is lactose-intolerant, that's what you're getting!

Plain and simple cash is a lot simpler to distribute, than managing inventories of surplus cheese and butter or whatever. Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

AverageBear   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 10:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 38

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone
abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating
them? Generalities are fun.

---------------------------------------------------------------
PDH, why do you pull shit out of thin air, and accuse me of things i never said. When did I ever say that I or conservatives ever wanted to get rid of social programs? I'm talking about my democrat-run state refusing to acknowledge and fix welfare fraud and waste. You counter w/ generalities. Nice try.

AverageBear   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 10:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 39

Vicente says

Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly
Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

------------------------------------------
HAHAHAAA!!!! "Efficient" being used to describe a gov't social program. HAHAHAAA!! That's fuckin' priceless. ooh boy, you made my day.

Yeah, let's continue to 'efficiently' give our tax dollars to fuckin' idiots (oh, my bad, the 'victims' of society that don't know better') blow $200 at a liquor store on Petrone, or take that EBT card, get cash for the next 8-ball... Efficiency indeed! Yes, this argument is settled. Everything is perfectly fine. No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

David Losh   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 11:37am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 40

The Professor says

I grew up on welfare. I did not even know we were poor.

So the system works.

David Losh   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 11:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 41

AverageBear says

No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

We have changed the system for you frigging whiners to the tune of that there $28 Billiion.

Going back to Reagan, who turned the mentally ill out on the street to save a few bucks, and Clinton, with his Welfare to Work government employment program, we have done nothing to make the system better, just more costly.

Hookers, and liquor? No, the vast majority of these people are barely surviving.

The reason we have waste is because the system is so complicated that, yes, really bad people can play it.

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

Yeah, let's set up a series of government agencies to do all of those things, shelter, food, and medical.

The problem there is the cost. It would also take away profits from land lords, McDonalds, and God forbid, the Medical Industry.

Welfare works, and could stand to cut the budget on oversight so that more money can reach the poor.

The Professor   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:08pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 42

David Losh says

Yeah, let's set up a series of government agencies to do all of those things, shelter, food, and medical.

Dormitories, kitchens, and clincs paid for by eliminating section 8, food stamps, and medical insurance.

Remember this is in my socialist utopia

The Professor   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:09pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 43

David Losh says

The problem there is the cost. It would also take away profits from land lords, McDonalds, and God forbid, the Medical Industry.

Make the capitalist pigs squeeel!

The Professor   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:16pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 44

David Losh says

Welfare works, and could stand to cut the budget on oversight so that more money can reach the poor.

One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work. If we gave poor people food, a place to sleep, medical care, training, and counseling, maybe they could work their way out of poverty.

You can give the poor money to feed, house, and care for them, Or you can teach the poor how to make money, and they can take care of themselves. And the ones that can't take care of themselves will employ others in their care.

futuresmc   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:46pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 45

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

Most conservatives hold to an ideology that believes that social programs are bad, without exception. They do not care if they are efficient, if they help the people they are meant to help, if other human beings will suffer or even die without them, etc. What matters is that their ideology must be upheld at all costs. Too much reliance on any ideology is inherently irrational, and unfortunately idealogues cling tighter and tighter to their ideology whenever it's challenged in serious debate.

Dan8267   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 12:55pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 46

AverageBear says

Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow reform to uncover waste.

Bull-fucking-shit. I am the most liberal person on Patrick.net. I am all for uncovering and prosecuting welfare fraud. Although I do suspect that banking fraud costs us taxpayers about a thousand times as much. The Federal Reserve lent big banks $16 trillion at 0% so those banks could lend money to our government and collect interest off of it. That's a $16 trillion fraud right there. Welfare fraud is small potatoes compared to that.

However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen. So much for your theory that liberals approve of welfare fraud or tacitly accept it. Perhaps you are confusing liberal with leftist or socialist. Totally different things.

Liberals believe in liberty, hence the term "liberal". We believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. We don't believe in victimless crimes because by definition, if there is no victim, there is no crime. That's what separates liberals from their opposites, fascists.

If you need further clarification, I can go on.

David Losh   Sat, 2 Feb 2013, 1:11pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 47

The Professor says

One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work.

Those days are long past with the Welfare to Work program, insisted on by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton. It adds cost to Welfare.

It's another cog in the wheel to appease whiners who insist welfare is riddled with fraud.

The truth is Welfare is a good system. What you are saying is that the people on Welfare are so stupid they would rather spend the money they get on hookers, and booze, than food, and their children.

You want repsonsibility? Give people money to do what they want. You want a nanny state, set up one agency, and another, and another, and a watch dog group to be sure that money is spent they way you say it should.

What AverageBear wants is more government to do his, or her bidding.

Poverty has gotten to be a much bigger issue than when we were kids. Look at the Census. We need more money pumped into poverty, and less into government agencies that over see it.

You want to get rid of waste? Let's talk about oil, transportation, sugar, chocolate, farming, autos, housing, and the all powerful medical industry.

Oops, that would be for everybody.

coriacci1   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 12:59am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 48

i repeat post Average bear delete; they don’t call afganistan the graveyard of empires for nothing! though i can’t understand why ABear would delete such a comment!

dublin hillz says

You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.

The Professor   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 1:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 49

David Losh says

The truth is Welfare is a good system. What you are saying is that the people on Welfare are so stupid they would rather spend the money they get on hookers, and booze, than food, and their children.

I never said people on welfare are stupid.

What I said was there is no incentive to work if someone sends you a check every month for NOT working.

David Losh says

Give people money to do what they want.

Bad idea. People just want to party.

David Losh says

Poverty has gotten to be a much bigger issue than when we were kids. Look at the Census. We need more money pumped into poverty, and less into government agencies that over see it.

Johnson started the "war on poverty" almost 50 years ago. Are the poor better off today?

The Professor   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 1:17am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 50

Feed the hungry, don't give them food stamps.

House the homeless, end section 8.

Educate the people, enough propaganda.

The Professor   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 1:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)     Comment 51

Poverty, another long war with little to show for it.

Vicente   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 1:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 52

AverageBear says

CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor. On the other hand any fraud in conservo-favored areas is just a "few bad apples".

Vicente   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 2:41am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 53

The Professor says

Dormitories, kitchens, and clincs paid for by eliminating section 8, food stamps, and medical insurance.

I used to live right next to one of the "industrial scale" attempts to end poverty that way. It was a New Deal effort, the first large public housing effort and it was named Techwood Homes. The problem with cramming a bunch of marginal people together in cheapest-possible housing, is you breed a subculture. The kids start to see the only better-off people they know are drug dealers, and things spiral down over decades. Eventually they bulldozed it and had better success after rebuilding the remaining units nicer and lower density and scattering poor people more in the community. Sorry it sounds good but it didn't work.

David Losh   Sun, 3 Feb 2013, 2:53am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 54

The Professor says

What I said was there is no incentive to work if someone sends you a check every month for NOT working.

and what I said is they don't send you a check for not working, any more. We have Welfare to Work which, to me is a fiasco.

I've worked with Welfare to Work as an employer, and no longer consider our Employment Security Department as a resource for labor. The people in the system are a mixed bag of Unemployment Benefits, and Welfare to Work.

It is ridiculous to take people who are questionable at the ability to cope, and try to fit them into a work enviorment.

It would be better just to give them money, and work on skill sets, rather than forcing employers to take on the social problems that go along with a segment of our society.

If we could get to full employment that would be different, but we can't. That is a discussion for another time, but the fact is some people don't have the social skill set to be working.

AverageBear   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 1:47am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 55

coriacci1 says

i repeat post Average bear delete; they don’t call afganistan the graveyard
of empires for nothing! though i can’t understand why ABear would delete such a
comment!


dublin hillz
says



You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering
that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up
to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.

---------------------------------------------------------
Coriacchi,

Although your comments about Afghanistan sound good on the surface, this comment has less than no worth on my thread. My thread's topic is about my state's refusal to acknowledge EBT waste and fraud. If you feel that strongly about Afghanistan, knock 'yerself out and start your own thread.... Get out of your 'WHHAAAA-mbulance', and stop crying that I deleted your post that has NOTHING to do with my topic. I offer some options:

- Don't reply to my thread
- Ignore me and my threads
- Start your own thread on whatever makes your socks go up and down.

As of now, Patrick has given a thread's owner the ability to delete comments. I exercised that feature. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I'll wait a few days so you get to read this before I delete it again. (if I remember or care)...

David Losh   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 7:51am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 56

Sorry, repeat comment

zzyzzx   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 8:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 57

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/local/la-me-welfare-casinos-20100624

Welfare aid cards valid at casinos

SACRAMENTO — California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.

The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.

AverageBear   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 9:53am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 58

Dan8267 says

Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow
reform to uncover waste.

Dan8267 says

However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said
anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan, you are right. I never said YOU didn't acknowledge welfare fraud, because you aren't living in Mass... I'm glad you are for prosecuting welfare fraud; you'd have plenty of people to educate here in Mass.

JodyChunder   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 10:03am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 59

Vicente says

Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor.

You're right Vicente - poverty is regarded almost like a seditious act to a lot of the $ worshipers I know.

AverageBear   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 10:10am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 60

Vicente says

Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which
has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why
bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and
untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor.

----------------------------------
Or....change the subject, by expanding the argument beyond the scope I presented: ie, my liberally-run state gov't refusing to acknowledge EBT waste/fraud. Between you and Corriacci, you are shouting at your rice-crispies about Afghanistan and agricultural subsidies because why??...

I'm sure projecting your "Conservo-Rage" is a masturbatory habit of yours, but it reeeealy doesn't address the argument of my state wanting to deal w/ EBT fraud. Taking my parochial argument w/ nebulous nation-wide accusations may make you feel good, but doesn't really add to the discussion of why democrats in my state are OK w/ EBT $$ going to lap dances out of state in Providence. Becuase this is what's happening. Many on this site accuse me of wanting to eliminate welfare (not true), hate poor people (not true). I'm just asking for common sense in my state gov't, and I get Afghanistan, agricultural subsidies. Is this all you got? Whatever. "A" for effort, though.

David Losh   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 10:24am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 61

AverageBear says

I'm just asking for common sense in my state gov't,

You got it with over sight. Finding ATMs that take EBT cards is pretty easy.

The EBT card is not my favorite way to run Welfare, and is prone to abuse. However Prosecuting welfare fraud is a lost cause. Many people in the welfare system look at jail time as another resource.

We could also continue to expand on our jail system, which is over crowded, and costly.

There is no difference between handing out a check to be cashed, then the money used for hookers, and booze, or as you say they use the EBT card at an ATM.

What we should do is take the $60K per year we spend on over sight per Welfare reciepient, and spend it on education, or collective purchasing of food, or shelter.

My first wife is a great gal who is a grant writer. She put together a collective in a rural area for seniors. She taught them how to make bulk purchases of staples, and negotiate better housing.

Long story short her project is still there thirty years later, and many of the seniors had more money to spend on hookers, and booze through better money management.

I kind of also resent this idea of telling people on Welfare how to spend the money. It is a choice that some people are very unable to make, or control.

Vicente   Mon, 4 Feb 2013, 10:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike (1)     Comment 62

AverageBear says

I'm sure projecting your "Conservo-Rage" is a masturbatory habit of yours

Hey I'm not the one starting OUTRAGE THREADS over penny-ante fraud.

You fail to recognize this is small potatoes. When we talk about righting the wrongs of the world, do we go after the lunch money or the BAG OF HUNDREDS?

AverageBear   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 9:27am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 63

Vicente says

Hey I'm not the one starting OUTRAGE THREADS over penny-ante fraud.


You fail to recognize this is small potatoes. When we talk about righting the
wrongs of the world, do we go after the lunch money or the BAG OF HUNDREDS?

---------------------------------------
Vic, that's your problem. We AREN'T talking about the 'wrongs of the world'; we are talking about the 'wrongs of my state'. Penny-ante is relative, till you get to the state level; then you realize that we aren't talking about chump change. I don't accept the premise of your argument that I'm bitching about a small amount of wasted $$. You casually dismiss the whole crux of this thread, it's title, and my argument. And if your only excuse of an argument is "It's only a small amount of $$', and not even argue what my democrat-run state is doing, then your argument is piss poor....

Vicente   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 9:36am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 64

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of examples say no.

So if you had to pick one thing would it be:
1) Waste
2) Fraud
3) Spending

AverageBear   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 10:08am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 65

David Losh says

You got it with over sight. Finding ATMs that take EBT cards is pretty easy.


The EBT card is not my favorite way to run Welfare, and is prone to abuse.
However Prosecuting welfare fraud is a lost cause.

--------------------------------
Gee Dave, 'prone to abuse'?? Ya think?

This is where you are wrong. Why can't anyone think beyond giving welfare recipients cash?? It's the most asinine thing our society can do, and folks like Kevin and Vicente are A-OK w/ this epic-failure of a solution.

I've got a novel idea. Instead of giving these folks EBT credit cards (ie, cash), let's do the following...

- 4 times a year, have each welfare recipient come down to the local welfare office, and prove/confirm name/SS#/address. First visit, we take their picture, and put it on a super market gift card that gets replenished each week or month. Think of it as a 'license to shop' (for shit you actually need, not want....) This fixes a few things. 1) it removes the small (but growing) illegal immigrants from getting any benefits (think of Obama's Aunti Zetuni)..... 2) it removes fraud from those double-dipping in 2 or more states. 3) it confirms an actual # of recipients that are receiving benefits; Something the democrats in Mass have no fuckin' clue on how to accomplish. 4) It prevents (or at least attempts) folks from selling the card to someone else in order to get $$ for drugs/booze/nail salons.

- Instead of giving out EBT credit cards, how about we give out gift cards to the local super-market that doesn't sell booze. Here in Mass, super markets don't sell liquor. You do have the rare BJ's that sells liquor, so we can remove them from this excersize. But welfare recipients will get a gift card to a Star Market, Roche Bros, Shaws, Market Basket. We use the address in the above bullet to confirm that the store's gift card is in their neighborhood.

- If you move, you have 4 opportunities a year to update the state on where you live.

I even have something more to add. We can use this card as an actual form of ID for voting, or a legit, complimentary form of state identification. You wanna vote? Great! We kill two birds w/ one stone. We (the taxpayers), pay for your card that you may (or may not) need to vote. The card will also get you your food. Liberals can't complain about 'wasting' money to confirm welfare recpient #'s, because we are, at the same time, 'getting the vote out'.....

BOOM. Problem solved. No welfare recpient is denied their doritos/pepsi/RingDings/steak/shrimp. They can buy diapers, cheese, formula, whatever the store sells. No inefficient state-run food depots.... No tax payer $$ wasted on lap dances down at the Foxy Lady in Providence, or on bail, or on cocaine, or gambling at Foxwoods in CT ...

Instead we have liberals on Patrick, that instead of actually THINKING of a solution, will actually try and defend this piss-poor status quo failure, and resort to name-calling, false accusations of me hating the poor. NNNIIIIIIICEEEEE!

AverageBear   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 10:12am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 66

Vicente says

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of
examples say no.

------------------------
Vic, nope. Never said that, nor do I necesarily believe it.

thomaswong.1986   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 11:25am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 67

Vicente says

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of examples say no.

So if you had to pick one thing would it be:

1) Waste

2) Fraud

3) Spending

If govt regulations like Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is good enough for Corporations it should be good for Govt work as well.

David Losh   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 11:38am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 68

AverageBear says

this epic-failure of a solution.

The EBT will be used to abuse Welfare receipients, for all the reasons you are suggesting.

Use it as ID? Come into the office four times a year? Have your picture taken?

As you have discovered the EBT has already tracked the abuse you are so outraged about. What more do you want?

How much more nanny State are you demanding, because your State already spends $3 for every $1 spent on Welfare policing it.

I don't know how many different ways to say that your State spends more on over sight of Welfare than on giving money to the poor.

How much is enough? Should we spend another $60 Billion on goverment agencies? How about if we just build more jails?

There's real crime in the world that we can't control, and you want to spend more resources policing the poor.

Vicente   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 2:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 69

thomaswong.1986 says

If govt regulations like Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is good enough for Corporations it should be good for Govt work as well.

Sarbanes-Oxley is actually a poor analog.

It's only applied to public companies, so you go after the BIG FISH not the small fry. Bear's thread is all about the small-timer little fish.

It costs money to do a bunch of compliance accounting, which nobody pays much attention to, until companies get caught red-hot-handed. Certainly it never really penetrates to the small-time investors who are supposed to be ENLIGHTENED by access to all this enforced honesty. But when it blows up they can at least say "oh, well we should have known".

That Alan Greenspan praises SOX should be enough to discredit it.

Vicente   Tue, 5 Feb 2013, 2:29pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)     Comment 70

AverageBear says

Instead we have liberals on Patrick, that instead of actually THINKING of a solution, will actually try and defend this piss-poor status quo failure, and resort to name-calling, false accusations of me hating the poor. NNNIIIIIIICEEEEE!

No we merely discount solutions that have already PROVEN ineffective. Remember physical food stamps? Yeah. So what would poor people do, who wanted something not on the approved list of items? They'd SELL the food stamps for less than face value, to get cash to get what they actually wanted.

Gift cards? So you give out cards only for the "approved" markets or one that give a good rate, or have good enforcement. Does it matter if these aren't in walking or easy public transit distance from the recipients? Poor people may not have cars and gas money. OK anyhow they buy a bunch of TIDE detergent or dry goods then sell that at a discount, now they have cash for what they do want. Nearly anything you can think of, to regulate and tightly control the way people spend their money, is open to a "free market" solution and will be trivially worked around.

You are indeed an Angry Bear.

Is shouting at strangers in a forum helping?

AverageBear   Fri, 8 Feb 2013, 1:32am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 71

David Losh says

How much more nanny State are you demanding, because your State already
spends $3 for every $1 spent on Welfare policing it.

----------------------------
I'm very interseted in this claim. Do you have links to back this up? Specifically concerning Massachusetts?

AverageBear   Fri, 8 Feb 2013, 2:00am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)     Comment 72

Vicente says

No we merely discount solutions that have already PROVEN ineffective.
Remember physical food stamps? Yeah. So what would poor people do, who wanted
something not on the approved list of items? They'd SELL the food stamps for
less than face value, to get cash to get what they actually wanted.


Gift cards? So you give out cards only for the "approved" markets or one that
give a good rate, or have good enforcement. Does it matter if these aren't in
walking or easy public transit distance from the recipients? Poor people may not
have cars and gas money.

------------------------------------------------------
Vic,

Why are you pulling food stamps out of your ass? When did I mention food stamps in this thread? i sure remember them, taking them when I was a cashier back in the 80's. Mentioning a 30 year old solution is quaint.

Mentioning food stamps brings nothing to your argument. I'm talking about a re-usable gift card for a supermarket, either with, or without a photo ID. Both forms become less valuable to pawn off for cash, as opposed to food stamps. You give away the card for cash, and you lose your ability to get food until the card is replaced. The person keeps the same card indefinitely, as it gets recharged w/ funds every week/month to shop for FOOD (not booze, not drugs) at the nearest supermarket. Are you still with me? I'm not talking food stamps. Kinda shoots your retarted 'food stamp' argument out of the water.

Tell me Vic, where do you think poor people currently get their food? Whether or not they pay for it w/ their own money, they are going to go to the same place; and chances are, it's a chain supermarket. The argument of 'ooooh poor people don't have cars and $$ for gas to get their food'?? What a LAME excuse. Then explain to me all of the cars I see in the project's parking lots where I used to live (Medford, MA)? Camrys, Accords, etc; brand new to 15+ years old; with a good representation of Escalades and Lexus' (more so than MY neighborhood, and I live in a nice area)....

God-forbid you make people get on a bus to get to the food store to get food FOR FREE. Shit, I used to do that as a college kid. What makes these welfare recipients so special?...Oh, that's right, I forgot. They are the 'victims'.. My bad.

As for the 'approved' supermarkets, there would be no 'approved' supermarkets. Every chain in the commonwealth would be used. And I'm pretty sure every chain has these gift cards.

What else you got? Because your status quo attitude to this failed distribution of welfare (EBT cash distributions) in my state, has got more holes in it than my spaghetti collander. You can't defend the fact that EBT $$ gets spent on booze, drugs, bail, nail salons, lottery, casinos OUT OF STATE, cruises, etc.

But no, no, no. Omniscient-Vic says we can't even try to improve this failure of gov't here in my state. PFFT.

« First     « Previous comments     Next comments »     Last »

AverageBear is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net