"Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

What a boring life.. don't you want to add something to the world.

I mean, you only get about 60 years of "productive" life.

Don't squander it.

.

Edit: Oh, I suppose the lower-class people get stuck doing crap work.
Yay, don't be lower-class.

.


So, you've never seen mom at Wal Mart with the foodstamp cart and dad behind her with the beer and toys cart?

That's fun to see too, when he has something in his cart that you wanted to get your kid for Christmas, but you said to yourself, "naaaaaaah. You're on a budget. That's too much to spend."

Heh, maybe he'll buy me a beer too. It's the least he could do, when I just fed his family and subsidized his breeding program. But, he needs that twelve pack, he worked hard today.

It's not class warfare. Class warfare is hyperbole. At least the "your anecdote is a dangerous lie" accusation has some air in the tires. It's stale air because this isn't a round table at a psychology convention, but it has some legitemacy to it.

The problem with the class warfare accusation is that there are really poor people who aren't getting helped so cheats can keep on cheating under the shield of class warfare accusations. Nobody wants to stand up to it because the political incorrect police will come down on them.

That's a splendid way to keep a problem being chronic.

I don't really have any answers to this unsolveable problem aside from crowdsourcing it to say if you see this douchebaggery, feel free to call them on it if you think you can do so without getting shot or stabbed or pounded on,....., so I'll leave you all with epic badass words from Judge Judy: don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've seen people buy some stuff with food stamps and other stuff with cash. Is that fraud? Should you have to have no money to get food stamps?

No one wants to stand up to it? There's a whole political party based around cutting welfare. They've been pretty damn successful too.


thejeff wrote:

I've seen people buy some stuff with food stamps and other stuff with cash. Is that fraud? Should you have to have no money to get food stamps?

No one wants to stand up to it? There's a whole political party based around cutting welfare. They've been pretty damn successful too.

Do you just not pay attention?

The OP asked for more than just fraud.

From the OP:
"Presumably lying or exaggeration is involved, or maybe there's a loophole in the law? In any case, what exactly does one have to do or say or be?"

The post being responded to didn't claim fraud.
The post being responded to didn't claim others should have no money to get food stamps.
The post described witnessing others living better than he did (buying stuff for their kids that he couldn't because he stuck to a budget) because they had food stamps.


Drive-By Socialist Troll Link


thejeff wrote:

I've seen people buy some stuff with food stamps and other stuff with cash. Is that fraud? Should you have to have no money to get food stamps?

No one wants to stand up to it? There's a whole political party based around cutting welfare. They've been pretty damn successful too.

Hold on; let me resin up my bow.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:


Hold on; let me resin up my bowl.

FIFY


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
So, you've never seen mom at Wal Mart with the foodstamp cart and dad behind her with the beer and toys cart?

No. But then, I hate Wal Mart with a passion and avoid it. Wal Mart hates America.


Depending on the time period an state, I can see where that person was coming from buying filet mingon with ebt. The penalties for not using up your cash used to be harsher than they are now, if you can believe it, as people would be completely cut off if they maintained a balance month to month. In many ways this sort of practice is what caused scams to crop up.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
thejeff wrote:

And despite all the abuse described here, there are actually many people who use the various forms of assistance in the way it's really meant to be used: A safety net to keep you from crashing all the way to the bottom and to give you a chance to get back on your feet again.

Is someone needs some help to get over a rough spot, a job loss, a medical problem, a disappeared spouse, whatever, and then maybe a couple years later starts doing better and can make it or even prosper on their own, shouldn't we try to make that easier?

Sure, there's abuse of the system and minimizing that is a worthy goal, but not at the expense of making it not work for those do need help. It's already hard enough for those who legitimately need help to get it. There are a lot of hoops to jump through and if you're not familiar with the system you can fall through the cracks.

For me the point from the OP was that the abuse didn't exist, and I felt like commenting on it.

It's kinda not fun to be in line at the grocery store with your mother who works her ass off every day like a damn workaholic and she's buying hamburger, when she is also buying filet mignon for the people in front of her using food stamps. I tend to see s+%+ like this and call shenanigans. B&#!!+@! is b$+%@$#@, and inevitably the only defense will be that it's class warfare, or I don't have any hard proof so it's anecdotal.
Um,........tell me again how this is a class warfare issue again?
Pffft......class warfare......


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Any incentive program that can be created, will be exploited.

On this subject polarization is likely, due to the varied experience of such a diverse populous.

People are lazy, people are unfortunate, people are greedy, and everything in between.

Our energy would be better spent finding a way to remove the need for such incentive programs.

True compassion isn't giving someone a free lunch. Seeing somebody for who and what they are, and inventing a way for them to contribute that appeals to their heart (and their wallet) is closer to the mark.


.

Class warfare is like the edition wars. Both sides think their way of
life is superior.

.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

I've found government aid very hard to get.

When I got out of the Army, I was unable to collect unemployment. I had to immediately look for a job, and blew through my savings while doing so.

Later on, I lost my job and needed to get food stamps to avoid starving. I barely managed to qualify, but they kept me fed for about a year.

Then the government found out I was still in college. The worker told me that if I quit college (and sent a letter of proof to them), I could stay on the program, otherwise I was getting cut. I got cut.

They would rather have me stuck on food stamps forever than pay temporarily for me to eat while I was using the GI Bill to go to college.

Michigan's great.

That sucks. I've experienced this kind of catch-22 with insurance and medicaid.

meatrace wrote:
At previous points she had been denied unemployment benefits because her employer lied about firing her, and had I not been there she would have been unable to pay rent.

What a douche. Why would an employer lie about firing someone? Did her boss hate her that much? Or maybe it just made his paperwork easier...

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

OP said, "So enlighten me. If you know one of these ill-favored unicorns, how exactly does one make a life-long career of 'mooching' from one's government? Presumably lying or exaggeration is involved, or maybe there's a loophole in the law? In any case, what exactly does one have to do or say or be?"

So, I think he was looking for anecdotal experiences; it's hard for me to prove motive, but I get the feeling he didn't think there would be any.

Gee whiz, I guess I should have started a case study on all these people. It would've been of incalculable scientific value to a thread in an off topic discussion thread on a gaming website some 15-20 years later.

I was a bit...dramatic in the OP, but it was in an effort to provide context for my inquiry. I never doubted that abuse of the system happens, but I was totally naive about how exactly it happens.

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
It's not class warfare. Class warfare is hyperbole.

A hobbit is sitting on his bench, minding his own business when an ogre wanders by. The ogre sees the bench, and decides to sit down too. Maybe he just doesn't realize how huge his rear side is, or maybe he doesn't notice the hobbit at all. Anyway, the ogre sits down and in doing so begins to suffocate the hobbit.

Now it's not exactly warfare, because the ogre isn't exactly trying to smother the hobbit. But it's a life-and-death struggle for the hobbit, and I'm sure you can see how the situation feels like a battle at the least.

A Snooty Gnome wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
So, you've never seen mom at Wal Mart with the foodstamp cart and dad behind her with the beer and toys cart?
No. But then, I hate Wal Mart with a passion and avoid it. Wal Mart hates America.

More people really need to understand this.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my country (the UK) we often have a skewed debate in which governments 'get tough' on benefit fraud but go very soft on corporate tax-avoidance.

Of course, corporate tax-avoidance costs the country more money, a lot more money. Which means it is probably increasing my taxes.

Which doesn't mean anything in and of itself but is a reminder of how loaded and political such debates are. Too often people start with an ideological perspective and prioritise their information around that.

Obviously, this is a thread about benefit fraud and the like but posters who are upset with benefit fraudsters for ripping off the state are still shopping at Walmart, whose tax-doding shenanigans even made the UK news a few years ago.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just a quick note to remind people to be civil and treat each other like rational adults. Discussions like these are hard enough for people to find common ground on already. Saying things like "You're a f*$*ing moron" to each other isn't cool and doesn't help. If you find yourself typing something like that into the little box, maybe step away from the keyboard for a bit before posting.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

OP said, "So enlighten me. If you know one of these ill-favored unicorns, how exactly does one make a life-long career of 'mooching' from one's government? Presumably lying or exaggeration is involved, or maybe there's a loophole in the law? In any case, what exactly does one have to do or say or be?"

So, I think he was looking for anecdotal experiences; it's hard for me to prove motive, but I get the feeling he didn't think there would be any.

Gee whiz, I guess I should have started a case study on all these people. It would've been of incalculable scientific value to a thread in an off topic discussion thread on a gaming website some 15-20 years later.

Anecdotes are for entertainment. So, I think I am directly on topic, by pointing out the validity of anecdotal information.


Grand Magus wrote:

.

Class warfare is like the edition wars. Both sides think their way of
life is superior.

.

There's a lot of that, true, but my side agrees that the other side's got better lives. That's what we're fighting about.


Irontruth wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

OP said, "So enlighten me. If you know one of these ill-favored unicorns, how exactly does one make a life-long career of 'mooching' from one's government? Presumably lying or exaggeration is involved, or maybe there's a loophole in the law? In any case, what exactly does one have to do or say or be?"

So, I think he was looking for anecdotal experiences; it's hard for me to prove motive, but I get the feeling he didn't think there would be any.

Gee whiz, I guess I should have started a case study on all these people. It would've been of incalculable scientific value to a thread in an off topic discussion thread on a gaming website some 15-20 years later.

Anecdotes are for entertainment. So, I think I am directly on topic, by pointing out the validity of anecdotal information.

Except that in this case, anecdotes have done more than entertain.

In this case, the specifics of how these things occurred was unknown. the anecdotes give examples of things that can be done that are simple enough for them not to be "unicorns".

Scarab Sages

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

So, you've never seen mom at Wal Mart with the foodstamp cart and dad behind her with the beer and toys cart?

That's fun to see too, when he has something in his cart that you wanted to get your kid for Christmas, but you said to yourself, "naaaaaaah. You're on a budget. That's too much to spend."

Heh, maybe he'll buy me a beer too. It's the least he could do, when I just fed his family and subsidized his breeding program. But, he needs that twelve pack, he worked hard today.

It's not class warfare. Class warfare is hyperbole. At least the "your anecdote is a dangerous lie" accusation has some air in the tires. It's stale air because this isn't a round table at a psychology convention, but it has some legitemacy to it.

The problem with the class warfare accusation is that there are really poor people who aren't getting helped so cheats can keep on cheating under the shield of class warfare accusations. Nobody wants to stand up to it because the political incorrect police will come down on them.

That's a splendid way to keep a problem being chronic.

I don't really have any answers to this unsolveable problem aside from crowdsourcing it to say if you see this douchebaggery, feel free to call them on it if you think you can do so without getting shot or stabbed or pounded on,....., so I'll leave you all with epic badass words from Judge Judy: don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.

That's teh exception. NOT the rule. Taking a few randoms tidbits does NOT speak for the whole.


Sanakht Inaros wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

So, you've never seen mom at Wal Mart with the foodstamp cart and dad behind her with the beer and toys cart?

That's fun to see too, when he has something in his cart that you wanted to get your kid for Christmas, but you said to yourself, "naaaaaaah. You're on a budget. That's too much to spend."

Heh, maybe he'll buy me a beer too. It's the least he could do, when I just fed his family and subsidized his breeding program. But, he needs that twelve pack, he worked hard today.

It's not class warfare. Class warfare is hyperbole. At least the "your anecdote is a dangerous lie" accusation has some air in the tires. It's stale air because this isn't a round table at a psychology convention, but it has some legitemacy to it.

The problem with the class warfare accusation is that there are really poor people who aren't getting helped so cheats can keep on cheating under the shield of class warfare accusations. Nobody wants to stand up to it because the political incorrect police will come down on them.

That's a splendid way to keep a problem being chronic.

I don't really have any answers to this unsolveable problem aside from crowdsourcing it to say if you see this douchebaggery, feel free to call them on it if you think you can do so without getting shot or stabbed or pounded on,....., so I'll leave you all with epic badass words from Judge Judy: don't piss on my foot and tell me that it's raining.

That's teh exception. NOT the rule. Taking a few randoms tidbits does NOT speak for the whole.

Would you demostrate that your perception of what the rule is happens to be different than what others say the rule is?


A little "food" for thought.

link

As part of the link discussing a brother selling his sister's card for cash...

Dayton Daily News wrote:


The state replaced 485,880 food stamp cards that were reported stolen or lost in 2009 and 2010, according to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Of these, about 50,950 belonged to residents in Butler, Greene, Miami, Montgomery and Warren counties.

Ohio had 2.07 million active food stamp accounts in the last two years, including 211,275 in the five-county region. This translates into the state replacing one-quarter of EBT cards given to recipients.

Every two years, one out of four cards in Ohio need to be replaced.

Crazy stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also from that article, painting a slightly better picture:

Quote:

Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for USDA, said food stamp trafficking is at the lowest levels in the history of the federal program. She said the electronic cards and other technology have greatly cut down on fraud, because it is easier to track reimbursement payments and usage.

Trafficking cost the federal program about $330 million annually across the country from 2008 to 2006, or about 1 cent of every dollar of benefits, according to the agency. In 1998, the program lost an estimated $811 million to trafficking.

So it's dropped drastically over the last decade and represents ~1% of benefits. A lot of retail businesses expect more than 1% shrinkage.

It's still a big number and should be brought down if possible, but we may be at a point of diminishing returns.


Mooching Off the Government Tit: The Musical Interlude


thejeff wrote:

Also from that article, painting a slightly better picture:

Quote:

Jean Daniel, a spokeswoman for USDA, said food stamp trafficking is at the lowest levels in the history of the federal program. She said the electronic cards and other technology have greatly cut down on fraud, because it is easier to track reimbursement payments and usage.

Trafficking cost the federal program about $330 million annually across the country from 2008 to 2006, or about 1 cent of every dollar of benefits, according to the agency. In 1998, the program lost an estimated $811 million to trafficking.

So it's dropped drastically over the last decade and represents ~1% of benefits. A lot of retail businesses expect more than 1% shrinkage.

It's still a big number and should be brought down if possible, but we may be at a point of diminishing returns.

the 2006 to 2008 time frame is before the time frame on the stolen/replaced cards.

link

Food Stamp Expansion and Fraud by: Jonathan Buono wrote:


Food stamp fraud, defined as “trafficking” by the USDA, represents more than $750 million in waste. There are many different kinds of food stamp trafficking and abuse. Most commonly, traffickers will sell their food stamps, now given in the form of plastic debit cards, at less than face value for cash. These sales are even attempted online through Craigslist and social media outlets. The Wall Street Journal has also reported larger, more organized cases of fraud.

...and before someone criticizes the source, I would note that the USDA (or any government agency for that matter) would have just as much political reason to downplay misuse of its funds.

Some more...

Food Stamp Expansion and Fraud by: Jonathan Buono wrote:


However, in an effort to encourage increased access to SNAP benefits, the USDA under the current administration, has also discouraged the use of asset tests as a benchmark to determine recipient eligibility. An asset test tallies a potential recipient’s countable resources, such as bank accounts, in determining his or her need for assistance. With the relaxation or elimination of asset tests for many states, there is more room for manipulation and exploitation of the program. This has caused some to point out that even millionaires are eligible for food stamps if their monthly income is low.


Misuse? You mean the point isn't to give profits to big agriculutre through food stamps?


doctor_wu wrote:
Misuse? You mean the point isn't to give profits to big agriculutre through food stamps?

Platitudes are useless in this discussion


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


link

Food Stamp Expansion and Fraud by: Jonathan Buono wrote:


Food stamp fraud, defined as “trafficking” by the USDA, represents more than $750 million in waste. There are many different kinds of food stamp trafficking and abuse. Most commonly, traffickers will sell their food stamps, now given in the form of plastic debit cards, at less than face value for cash. These sales are even attempted online through Craigslist and social media outlets. The Wall Street Journal has also reported larger, more organized cases of fraud.

In regards to the bolded apart--what is that supposed to refer to, you think? A year? A month?

I'm assuming a year, which would make it between twice and thrice the USDA spokesperson's claim.

If this is true, then $750 million out of $75.3 billion--I'm still getting the 1% statistic cited by thejeff from The Thing's article.

Which might not conclusively demonstrate anything, but it indicates that, indeed, Sanakht's viewpoint that fraudulent trafficking represents "a few random tidbits" is closer to reality than the opposite view.

(I hope my math is right.)

EDIT: Although, I suppose there could be other forms of illegitimacy attached to the other 99%.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


link

Food Stamp Expansion and Fraud by: Jonathan Buono wrote:


Food stamp fraud, defined as “trafficking” by the USDA, represents more than $750 million in waste. There are many different kinds of food stamp trafficking and abuse. Most commonly, traffickers will sell their food stamps, now given in the form of plastic debit cards, at less than face value for cash. These sales are even attempted online through Craigslist and social media outlets. The Wall Street Journal has also reported larger, more organized cases of fraud.

In regards to the bolded apart--what is that supposed to refer to, you think? A year? A month?

I'm assuming a year, which would make it between twice and thrice the USDA spokesperson's claim.

If this is true, then $750 million out of $75.3 billion--I'm still getting the 1% statistic cited by thejeff from The Thing's article.

Which might not conclusively demonstrate anything, but it indicates that, indeed, Sanakht's viewpoint that fraudulent trafficking represents "a few random tidbits" is closer to reality than the opposite view.

(I hope my math is right.)

The $700 million + is per year.

Jeff cited over $300 million per year, much less than 1%. His comparison to retail shrinkage is moot.

The 1% is just trafficking and fraud with respect to food stamps (now cards in most cases) but does not include where the qualification guidelines are so lax as to allow those not needing them to gain them legally, i.e. mooching.


Yup. Edit already added.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Yup. Edit already added.

referencing prior link...

Food Stamp Expansion and Fraud by: Jonathan Buono wrote:


However, in an effort to encourage increased access to SNAP benefits, the USDA under the current administration, has also discouraged the use of asset tests as a benchmark to determine recipient eligibility. An asset test tallies a potential recipient’s countable resources, such as bank accounts, in determining his or her need for assistance. With the relaxation or elimination of asset tests for many states, there is more room for manipulation and exploitation of the program. This has caused some to point out that even millionaires are eligible for food stamps if their monthly income is low.

It is not merely that means to exploit the system legally have always existed but that the means to do so have been made much easier in recent years.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


It is not merely that means to exploit the system legally have always existed but that the means to do so have been made much easier in recent years.

It is easy to do X.

Therefore X happens all the time.

Do you see the problem with this logic?


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


The $700 million + is per year.
Jeff cited over $300 million per year, much less than 1%. His comparison to retail shrinkage is moot.

The 1% is just trafficking and fraud with respect to food stamps (now cards in most cases) but does not include where the qualification guidelines are so lax as to allow those not needing them to gain them legally, i.e. mooching.

I cited over $300 million per year, from the source in your first link, which said "about one cent of every dollar" or 1%. Obviously it was referring to a different time frame and thus a different total than your next link, but the percentage remains about the same.

So do you have any estimates on how much is wasted due to lax qualification guidelines? Or just links to anecdotes.

Also remember that "assets" include not just the bank accounts your source mentions, but also things like cars, which might be useful in getting and holding a job and getting off assistance. Should those also have to be sold before getting any help?

I'm also amused that in his rant about "food stamp expansion", there is only one line that mentions that the biggest recession since the Great Depression had anything to do with it. Mostly he rants about how big it got and how Obama expanded it. No indication how much of the growth was due to lower standards or increased payouts and how much due to increased need.


meatrace wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


It is not merely that means to exploit the system legally have always existed but that the means to do so have been made much easier in recent years.

It is easy to do X.

Therefore X happens all the time.

Do you see the problem with this logic?

When it is a case of receiving monetary benefit without penalty, no, I don't.

When it is a case of seeking rewards, in general, when they can be received without penalty or investment, it is quite certain that people will do it all the time.

Secondly, there is a vagueness in terms such as common and all the time.

Thirdly, with three hundred million people in the US it is quite certain that practically everything does happen all the time which then reverts back to the vagueness of common and not common.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


It is not merely that means to exploit the system legally have always existed but that the means to do so have been made much easier in recent years.

It is easy to do X.

Therefore X happens all the time.

Do you see the problem with this logic?

No, of course not. There are so many millionaires around claiming foodstamps because they have no income. That's what's breaking the bank in this country.

$75 billion a year. How many weeks of the military budget is that?


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


When it is a case of receiving monetary benefit without penalty, no, I don't.

When it is a case of seeking rewards, in general, when they can be received without penalty or investment, it is quite certain that people will do it all the time.

So then we must all be abusing the system. It's so easy to do, everyone, by virtue of your sterling logic, does it. Everyone. Bravo.

Or maybe 1% do. Is this an acceptable failure rate?


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
meatrace wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


It is not merely that means to exploit the system legally have always existed but that the means to do so have been made much easier in recent years.

It is easy to do X.

Therefore X happens all the time.

Do you see the problem with this logic?

When it is a case of receiving monetary benefit without penalty, no, I don't.

When it is a case of seeking rewards, in general, when they can be received without penalty or investment, it is quite certain that people will do it all the time.

Secondly, there is a vagueness in terms such as common and all the time.

Thirdly, with three hundred million people in the US it is quite certain that practically everything does happen all the time which then reverts back to the vagueness of common and not common.

Which is why I'd love to see actual numbers on how much of problem this is.

That first link you posted quoted all sorts of anecdotes about how common selling food stamps was, that seemed to imply that everyone using food stamps was defrauding the government, then both it and the other link gave actual number showing that kind of fraud to be about 1%.
So now we've got anecdotes about mooching and no numbers to show how much of a problem it is. Again given in the most alarming terms: "Millionaires getting food stamps!!!"


thejeff wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


The $700 million + is per year.
Jeff cited over $300 million per year, much less than 1%. His comparison to retail shrinkage is moot.

The 1% is just trafficking and fraud with respect to food stamps (now cards in most cases) but does not include where the qualification guidelines are so lax as to allow those not needing them to gain them legally, i.e. mooching.

I cited over $300 million per year, from the source in your first link, which said "about one cent of every dollar" or 1%. Obviously it was referring to a different time frame and thus a different total than your next link, but the percentage remains about the same.

So do you have any estimates on how much is wasted due to lax qualification guidelines? Or just links to anecdotes.

Also remember that "assets" include not just the bank accounts your source mentions, but also things like cars, which might be useful in getting and holding a job and getting off assistance. Should those also have to be sold before getting any help?

I'm also amused that in his rant about "food stamp expansion", there is only one line that mentions that the biggest recession since the Great Depression had anything to do with it. Mostly he rants about how big it got and how Obama expanded it. No indication how much of the growth was due to lower standards or increased payouts and how much due to increased need.

1.

Again, you revert to the pathetic technique used in an attempt to trash spanky's earlier post mentioning people on food stamps buying things for their kids he couldn't for his kids.

Nonsense.

Saying that one's total resources should be taken into account when determining eligibility is not saying that no one with a car should be eligible.

2. estimates versus links to anecdotes of waste due to relaxation of guidelines...
The problem is defining what is waste.
That will take some time.
First, it will involve determining how much was given out prior to relaxation and then comparing how much is given out afterward. Then to be fair, it will require determining how much of that increase in benefits might have occurred without the relation of restrictions.
No quick response but will work on it.

3. comments on the articles rant
Moot point. That is why I didn't include them. The points included were statistics regarding fraud as it was a number I saw on several sources when I began googling information. I have made no argument against the current economy making things harder on others and I don't think I have seen anyone else in this thread.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, if I were a plutocrat, I don't think I could come up with a better welfare system than what we've got.

First, convince the working class that they are, in fact, middle class because they own homes and vehicles and entertainment systems.

Second, send all of the good jobs overseas.

Third, concoct a government assistance program open to all kinds of corruption for the jobless and then dump the tax burden for that onto the "middle class", i.e., workers who still have jobs.

Fourth, sit back and laugh as the profits roll in and the stupid proles squabble with each other over food stamps.


meatrace wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


When it is a case of receiving monetary benefit without penalty, no, I don't.

When it is a case of seeking rewards, in general, when they can be received without penalty or investment, it is quite certain that people will do it all the time.

So then we must all be abusing the system. It's so easy to do, everyone, by virtue of your sterling logic, does it. Everyone. Bravo.

Or maybe 1% do. Is this an acceptable failure rate?

Quit trying to apply stupid pseudo-logic.

The original logic is sound but the hyperbolic interjection is not. It is a nonsense interpretation.

I made no such argument nor implied no such argument.

Edit: Acceptable versus not acceptable. When limited to approximating one type of fraud rather than abuse of a whole system, no. Again, look at the Ohio statistic, every two years one out of four cards must be replaced. That is an enormous figure (not all will be fraud) and is evidence supporting a much higher incident rate than 1%. Then add in results of relaxed qualification restrictions and it becomes very substantial, IMO. To make things more difficult, access to people's records who receive assistance isn't very open to the public for the public to view...


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


2. estimates versus links to anecdotes of waste due to relaxation of guidelines...
The problem is defining what is waste.
That will take some time.

Oh I see. So because the statistics on waste,fraud, and abuse don't jibe with your own narrative (that simply EVERYONE is mooching) then we have to redefine waste until it does.

As long as I know what game we're all playing...


[backs out of the argument before another Epic Meatrace vs. The Thing fight breaks out]


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


Quit trying to apply stupid pseudo-logic.
The original logic is sound but the hyperbolic interjection is not. It is a nonsense interpretation.

I made no such argument nor implied no such argument.

I asked for clarification. You clarified. That's precisely what you argued.

It is easy for people to defraud foodstamps.
Therefore everyone does it.

Your logic now seems to be:
Statistics show that 1% of the foodstamps budget is waste, fraud, or abuse.
Therefore their definition of waste, fraud, and abuse must be faulty.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
[backs out of the argument before another Epic Meatrace vs. The Thing fight breaks out]

Yeah me too. I have to go to work (booo!) I just thought I'd poke the badger a bit before going.

Enjoy!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I love the overall attitude. Apparently working my way through college after military service to the country isn't good enough to deserve a couple hundred bucks for food a month. If I get that help, it seems the overarching thought is that any kids I have should not have toys (The earlier Wal-mart cart comment), that I should never be able to enjoy a drink of alcohol, a candy bar, an energy drink or prepared food (existing and suggested limits on the food stamps card have included things as drastic as 'bread, potatoes, fruits and select meats'), that I shouldn't have a computer, or a car, or an apartment or a cell phone, or if I do, they should all be terrible specimens of such.

But luckily, they are preventing anyone from gaming (ie using) the system, so I've been kicked off anyways. They'd give me the money if I sat around slumming in the house, but not if I was trying to better myself.

One month, I had to make the terrible choice between rent and food. I chose rent, because I was concerned that if I lost my apartment, I'd never have the money to put down for a deposit. It's a humbling thing to stand outside the back of a restaurant offering to take their trash out so you can pick through it. And to be treated like a cancer for that. It's a scary thing to finally be so hungry you eat food from a dumpster. And I had maybe three weeks of that? It seemed like an eternity, but there are guys who are doing it every day. My cell phone was turned off that month as well, so it was really hard to get a callback to a job with no contact number. Didn't want to use up my gas on anything less than a realistic job offer. Grades that semester were poor, to say the least.

I'd always been a Republican before that. Homosexual rights the only 'liberal' thing I endorsed. I think being a "food stamp bum" made me realize how asinine and arrogant that label was. My time in the Army had already been opening my eyes to a lot of people who were ruining the preconceived notions I had about how people were, but being the bum tipped the balance. I'd served the country prior to 9-11, through it and beyond, and I was eating out of a trash can. I wanted a job, I wanted an education, and I wanted to become a productive member of society. The social safety net failed me when I needed it the most. How many other people is it failing?


meatrace wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:


2. estimates versus links to anecdotes of waste due to relaxation of guidelines...
The problem is defining what is waste.
That will take some time.

Oh I see. So because the statistics on waste,fraud, and abuse don't jibe with your own narrative (that simply EVERYONE is mooching) then we have to redefine waste until it does.

As long as I know what game we're all playing...

More nonsense.

First, the 1% number was specifically referring to fraud but is not a number referring to those who legally obtain the money. thejeff asked for a quantification of that number.

I was redefining nothing. Mooching through legal obtainment of benefits was one of the things asked about in the OP. It was one of the things anecdotes were given of. Questions arose regarding the extent of these anecdotes. The fraud gave quantifiable numbers to illegal obtainment. I was listing the steps to obtain information regarding the legal mooching.

I could have simply said that (arbitrary numbers here) $3 billion dollar were given out before relation of restriction but 5% billion were afterward therefore $2 billion is the waste. That would not take into account the economy. I was pointing out it would take some research to separate economic increase from restriction relaxation increase.

The entire portion of the quoted #2

****
2. estimates versus links to anecdotes of waste due to relaxation of guidelines...
The problem is defining what is waste.
That will take some time.
First, it will involve determining how much was given out prior to relaxation and then comparing how much is given out afterward. Then to be fair, it will require determining how much of that increase in benefits might have occurred without the relation of restrictions.
No quick response but will work on it.

****

I was saying I would take the time to ensure my stats would not be padded by the impact of a bad economy.

Making sure not to include stats in an improper fashion just to bump my stats is not redefining them to meet my needs.

It is quite the opposite.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

I love the overall attitude. Apparently working my way through college after military service to the country isn't good enough to deserve a couple hundred bucks for food a month. If I get that help, it seems the overarching thought is that any kids I have should not have toys (The earlier Wal-mart cart comment), that I should never be able to enjoy a drink of alcohol, a candy bar, an energy drink or prepared food (existing and suggested limits on the food stamps card have included things as drastic as 'bread, potatoes, fruits and select meats'), that I shouldn't have a computer, or a car, or an apartment or a cell phone, or if I do, they should all be terrible specimens of such.

But luckily, they are preventing anyone from gaming (ie using) the system, so I've been kicked off anyways. They'd give me the money if I sat around slumming in the house, but not if I was trying to better myself.

One month, I had to make the terrible choice between rent and food. I chose rent, because I was concerned that if I lost my apartment, I'd never have the money to put down for a deposit. It's a humbling thing to stand outside the back of a restaurant offering to take their trash out so you can pick through it. And to be treated like a cancer for that. It's a scary thing to finally be so hungry you eat food from a dumpster. And I had maybe three weeks of that? It seemed like an eternity, but there are guys who are doing it every day. My cell phone was turned off that month as well, so it was really hard to get a callback to a job with no contact number. Didn't want to use up my gas on anything less than a realistic job offer. Grades that semester were poor, to say the least.

I'd always been a Republican before that. Homosexual rights the only 'liberal' thing I endorsed. I think being a "food stamp bum" made me realize how asinine and arrogant that label was. My time in the Army had already been opening my eyes to a lot of people who were ruining the preconceived notions I had about how people were, but...

Again, more garbage.

It has been explicitly stated that the point is NOT that those receiving welfare should not be able to buy toys for their children.

The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

So, stop with the nonsense.


The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Again, more garbage.

It has been explicitly stated that the point is NOT that those receiving welfare should not be able to buy toys for their children.

The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

So, stop with the nonsense.

Except that's how the anecdotes always play out: I saw a guy buying a nice toy that I couldn't afford, therefore he is able to outstrip me (in his purchases).

It's always generalizing off of one example. If you want to prevent the one example, you have to prevent them all. You have to set up a situation where no one on food stamps can ever buy anything that someone not getting food stamps doesn't think he can afford.
Maybe the guy buying the toy really was scamming the system. Maybe that was the one big thing he bought all year because he really wanted to make his kid happy, even if they couldn't really afford it.
The whole point of the anecdote, is that he shouldn't have been able to do it, however long he scraped and saved for it.


thejeff wrote:
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Again, more garbage.

It has been explicitly stated that the point is NOT that those receiving welfare should not be able to buy toys for their children.

The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

So, stop with the nonsense.

Except that's how the anecdotes always play out: I saw a guy buying a nice toy that I couldn't afford, therefore he is able to outstrip me (in his purchases).

It's always generalizing off of one example. If you want to prevent the one example, you have to prevent them all. You have to set up a situation where no one on food stamps can ever buy anything that someone not getting food stamps doesn't think he can afford.
Maybe the guy buying the toy really was scamming the system. Maybe that was the one big thing he bought all year because he really wanted to make his kid happy, even if they couldn't really afford it.
The whole point of the anecdote, is that he shouldn't have been able to do it, however long he scraped and saved for it.

No, it is not. Just more making things up.


Trying not to make up nonsense or garbage.

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

Sure, that seems reasonable.

However, I would need more than anecdotes about toy shopping one night at the Wal-Mart to convince me that the latter's purchases are outstripping the former's.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Again, more garbage.

It has been explicitly stated that the point is NOT that those receiving welfare should not be able to buy toys for their children.

The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

So, stop with the nonsense.

No, your line of thought is garbage. You haven't been there, and I have. You haven't been treated to the kind of bull$#it level of disrespect over food stamps that people feel is appropriate thanks to the myth of the food stamp bum, and I have. So you can take your lack of experience and your made up platitudes and light a fire with them for all I care. I'm a vet and I nearly starved because this system is broken and would rather deny food to the crackheads than feed the hungry. When you manage to come up with something to answer that, you let me know.

In this very thread there is a comment about the mom food stamping her way through Wal-mart while the dad buys toys.

In multiple conversations, the horror at people on food stamps being able to buy energy drinks now, has been brought up, satirized on Youtube, Quickmeme and Facebook and pointed to as evidence that the system is indeed broken.

And until you force people to buy the same toys for their children, there will be discrepancy. As a child, I grew up in a middle class family. I lived next door to a less well off middle class family. As a child, I never made that connection, because the brat who lived there had every Ninja Turtle that came out, while I had to buy mine, and had a much smaller collection. Turns out my father made more than both of his parents' combined, and just didn't really like to spend a bunch of money on toys for us. No two parents or people will have the same idea of what is an 'appropriate' level of toys for their children. Pointing to a foodstamp family that spends more on toys than a poor family that does not is not evidence the system is broken. People not being able to eat is evidence that the system is broken.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

Trying not to make up nonsense or garbage.

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:
The point is being made that if those not receiving welfare can get by (buying some stuff for their kids) then those receiving welfare who are able to outstrip (in their purchases) then those receiving shouldn't be.

Sure, that seems reasonable.

However, I would need more than anecdotes about toy shopping one night at the Wal-Mart to convince me that the latter's purchases are outstripping the former.

Fair enough.

I don't have kids and did not supply the anecdote.

My personal anecdotes of that nature would be that growing up in a differing time period.

Spoiler:

My personal anecdote of a different nature will be regarding my nephew (son of the younger of my two older brothers) and his daughter.

The Mom of my great niece was one of (I think) three daughters. All three had multiple children (the Mother of my great niece had three older sons), all lived with their mother, and none of them worked, including their mother.

They all received extensive welfare, earned income tax credit (both federal and Virginia, leading to a return of all taxes paid and money on top of it...EITC is far better than deductions), and none of them received money from the "baby's daddy" on the books. The mother also controlled tight access (stopped at the door) to my nephew and all the fathers visiting.

She (my great niece) never had good clothes or her hair done (it took one of my sisters a few hours to straighten out her hair one visit), and never had anything nice to wear when she was picked up. Sad, because my doting brother (who is a master chief in the USN) always showered her with gifts of clothes and toys.

My wise sister (youngest of my three oldest), would always make it a point to buy gifts for all her brothers too when Christmas came around and pointed out to us how it might make them feel for my great niece to receive better than them. When my brother returned from his last sea duty (not merely his most recent one but it will be the last since he will shortly retire) we all went to wait for him to come in at the base (except my oldest sister and her husband who went aboard the carrier as part of a "tiger cruise" in Jacksonville and rode up to Norfolk Naval Station with him) and my wise sister went to pick up my great niece. The mom wouldn't let her go to see her doting granddad (my brother) until my sister agreed to pay to get her hair done and buy her something nice to wear. :(

This bothered us because my brother didn't care what she would be wearing but the Mom held out on him seeing his beloved only granddaughter. But, my wise sister convinced us it was just because things were so bad on them. Although we had thought that her things might be getting sold on the side, we were counseled she was being dropped off without those things that had been bought for her so she could get more from our family which had more money.

Of course, this was about two years ago. The MOM has moved out (from her Mom) since she and her sisters are now late twenties and live in low income housing while receiving off the books monetary help from multiple kids' daddies, including my nephew. My nephew lost his job and began spending a whole lot of time at her place with the girl until he found a new job where previously he had been working 40+ hours to provide for her. Guess what, all those things we had bought for her thinking she was just being sent over without them so we would buy more...they weren't there. Mom didn't spend time with the kids. Mom didn't do the girl's hair herself (much less paying to have it done; my great niece, now six, is halfblack and her hair is incredibly difficult to deal with when left unmanaged for extended periods of time) and all those things bought for her had been sold. Sold to buy the drugs and alcohol that she spent her money on.

She (the Mom) is in low income housing despite getting money off the books. As were she and all her sisters and her mom before she moved out on her own. The kids don't have anything because the money goes to drugs and booze. The kids are given things by family members but they don't get to have those things because they are sold for drugs and booze.

My nephew is in the process of trying to gain custody...

Not the Walmart anecdote, but mine.

101 to 150 of 754 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / "Never Worked a Day in My Life": Urban Myth? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.