why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue May 13, 2014 11:59 am

Why? Doesn't everyone carry at least $800 in cash in their $200 wallet along with their food stamps or WIC cards? All sarcasm aside, it is amazing how the USDA has become a federal welfare agency.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Tue May 13, 2014 2:44 pm

The most disturbing part of that report is the last few words,

Also missing were the woman's food stamp cards.

Fraud says what? Nice of her to admit that to the cops and therefore the press. Too bad she will never be prosecuted due to government incompetence, despite her confession.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Tue May 13, 2014 6:34 pm

Left Seater wrote:
Fraud says what? Nice of her to admit that to the cops and therefore the press. Too bad she will never be prosecuted due to government incompetence, despite her confession.

While I'm obviously no fan of government largess...

Where does she "confess" to anything?

Could have just cashed a paycheck, could have just had a yard sale, could have received a gift from mom (as the purse and wallet could also be).

Your post earned a solid F.

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue May 13, 2014 8:10 pm

Or she was toting stolen goods; and she was carrying that stash of pot for a friend. I could also be the King of France. You never know.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Tue May 13, 2014 8:27 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:
Fraud says what? Nice of her to admit that to the cops and therefore the press. Too bad she will never be prosecuted due to government incompetence, despite her confession.
While I'm obviously no fan of government largess...

Where does she "confess" to anything?

Could have just cashed a paycheck, could have just had a yard sale, could have received a gift from mom (as the purse and wallet could also be).

Your post earned a solid F.

Which will probably raise his GPA.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Tue May 13, 2014 9:38 pm

Wolfman wrote:it is amazing how the USDA has become a federal welfare agency.

You do realize food stamps are welfare for farmers, right?

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Tue May 13, 2014 10:42 pm

When I studied agricultural economics at the U of Maine we were remarking that depression era programs were still in force in the 60's. Folks like Ted Turner are riding that gravy train.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Wed May 14, 2014 12:59 am

Dinsdale is right.

While the picture is cute, and provokes a knee-jerk reaction from those sickened by government waste, it proves exactly... nothing.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:30 am

Going to second Dinsdale's take. This is picture that can be taken a couple of different ways, but it establishes nothing.

Poptart has it dead on, as does Dins, it is a manipulative piece of worthless media. Establish some background and facts, then let's have a conversation.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:18 am

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Establish some background and facts, then let's have a conversation.

Let's don't but say we did.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:25 am

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Going to second Dinsdale's take.

Poptart has it dead on, as does Dins...

Partlimentary mis-step much?

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:23 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:
Fraud says what? Nice of her to admit that to the cops and therefore the press. Too bad she will never be prosecuted due to government incompetence, despite her confession.
While I'm obviously no fan of government largess...

Where does she "confess" to anything?

She confesses to having more than one EBT card. That would be fraud, yes?

Waynegro · Post by **Waynegro** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:49 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Wolfman wrote:it is amazing how the USDA has become a federal welfare agency.
You do realize food stamps are welfare for farmers, right?

No it isn't you ignorant cunt.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 14, 2014 1:54 pm

Waynegro wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
Wolfman wrote:it is amazing how the USDA has become a federal welfare agency.
You do realize food stamps are welfare for farmers, right?
No it isn't you ignorant cunt.

Yes...it is.

Screw_Michigan · Post by **Screw_Michigan** » Wed May 14, 2014 2:34 pm

mvscal wrote:
Waynegro wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote: You do realize food stamps are welfare for farmers, right?
No it isn't you ignorant cunt.
Yes...it is.

LOL

Hey Wayne, is there anything you haven't had your teeth kicked in over since you've started posting here? You're like 0-for-8 so far.

Keep it up, slugger.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 14, 2014 3:03 pm

88 wrote:The vast majority of those dollars go to retailers, wholesalers, distributors, manufacturers/processors and those in the service industries (transportation, marketing etc.).

Who get their raw materials from?

Just a clue to help you out, the entire Farm bill is welfare for farmers.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed May 14, 2014 3:35 pm

Dinsdale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:
Fraud says what? Nice of her to admit that to the cops and therefore the press. Too bad she will never be prosecuted due to government incompetence, despite her confession.
While I'm obviously no fan of government largess...

Where does she "confess" to anything?

Could have just cashed a paycheck, could have just had a yard sale, could have received a gift from mom (as the purse and wallet could also be).

Your post earned a solid F.

Reading comp isn't your strong point, yet you give my post an F?

Go back and read the part of the blurb I put in quotes. Then read it again. Still struggling, then focus on the last letter. Cards, as in more than one. Each HOUSEHOLD is issued one card. If she has multiple cards she is committing fraud. If one of the cards is not hers and she is in possession of said card she is breaking the law. This is not hard to understand. The cash, purse and wallet were never mentioned by me, each could be a gift, stolen, found, purchased. We don't know. However, this blurb was likely taken directly from the police report and would include the "victims" own words. The cops wouldn't write down cards, as in multiple, unless that is what she stated.

Might want to rethink your grades here starting with yours.

I am also not surprised Goobs was quick to pile on a take that missed the mark by a mile. Typical.

Waynegro · Post by **Waynegro** » Wed May 14, 2014 3:46 pm

Screw_Michigan wrote:
LOL

Hey Wayne, is there anything you haven't had your teeth kicked in over since you've started posting here? You're like 0-for-8 so far.

Keep it up, slugger.

How did I have my "teeth kicked in" pointed out that you were wrong and an ignorant cunt? Both are facts, dipshit.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed May 14, 2014 4:18 pm

Pop, Jay and Wagon also need to go back and do a little more reading. Or are you ok supporting Dins' straw man?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Going to second Dinsdale's take. This is picture that can be taken a couple of different ways, but it establishes nothing.

Poptart has it dead on, as does Dins, it is a manipulative piece of worthless media. Establish some background and facts, then let's have a conversation.

Jay I am a bit surprised by your take here as well. What with your understanding of media and how it works. I will assume that you took Dins' straw man hook, line and sinker.

Just exactly how is a crime blotter blurb manipulative and worthless? It contains info from the filed police report. There is no opinon given from the person who complied the blurb, police or victim. All facts are credited to the victim or the police report, ie the victim. Maybe the blurb was edited down to include only statements but that is hardly manipulative. The facts are well established here, unless you want to argue the honesty of the victim, which I wasn't doing. I am taking her at her word that the purse was stolen, with the items she claims we're contained therein.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:22 pm

Left Seater wrote:The cops wouldn't write down cards, as in multiple, unless that is what she stated.

Yea cops never get shit wrong. Neither does the press.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:35 pm

Not saying neither don't make mistakes. But that is a whole different discussion if we are going to assume the police report is wrong due to cop or press errors.

Goober McTuber · Post by **Goober McTuber** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:41 pm

Left Seater wrote:I am also not surprised Goobs was quick to pile on a take that missed the mark by a mile. Typical.

I made no evaluation of Dins' post. Just a comment on your GPA.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 14, 2014 5:53 pm

Moving Sale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:The cops wouldn't write down cards, as in multiple, unless that is what she stated.
Yea cops never get shit wrong. Neither does the press.

Irrelevant.

The statement as written is prima facie evidence of fraud, yes?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 14, 2014 6:08 pm

Left Seater wrote:Not saying neither don't make mistakes.

Not sure why you typed that then but not a big deal.

mvscal wrote: Irrelevant.

The reliability of evidence is irrelevant? Are you on crack?

The statement as written is prima facie evidence of fraud, yes?

I think you can have more that one "food stamp card" so it is not prima facie evidence of anything that I know of.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed May 14, 2014 6:19 pm

Left Seater wrote:Jay I am a bit surprised by your take here as well. What with your understanding of media and how it works. I will assume that you took Dins' straw man hook, line and sinker.

Not buying into any straw man hook, just making (an over-emphasized) point that the "facts" stated were of the items that were missing, made no relevance as to a sense of fraud. It has been pointed out that she had more than one EBT card, and on the surface that would be fraudulent. Could they have been cards from other family members who had qualified for food stamps? Probably not, but there could be a rational explanation.

Just exactly how is a crime blotter blurb manipulative and worthless? It contains info from the filed police report. There is no opinon given from the person who complied the blurb, police or victim. All facts are credited to the victim or the police report, ie the victim. Maybe the blurb was edited down to include only statements but that is hardly manipulative.

This is where I said I over-emphasized things. While the report is not worthless, because it appears to be minus some details, you see the reaction it has gotten in this thread alone. Without the specifics, it engenders emotional response, good or bad. Media can be manipulative in different ways, and while this article wasn't designed to deliberately be so, it still is.

The facts are well established here, unless you want to argue the honesty of the victim, which I wasn't doing. I am taking her at her word that the purse was stolen, with the items she claims we're contained therein.

No argument about this, unless otherwise discovered, you have to take her at her word.

The money she had, the price of the purse and wallet, all of this is white noise, as there could be any number of reasons for her to have those things, that amount of cash and still have food stamps. Not saying it doesn't look questionable, not saying it isn't fraud, just saying it might not be. Wait for the complete story, then start bashing.

Right now it seems much ado over very little.

mvscal · Post by **mvscal** » Wed May 14, 2014 6:58 pm

Jay in Phoenix wrote: Could they have been cards from other family members who had qualified for food stamps?

Cards are issued on a household basis.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed May 14, 2014 7:14 pm

MS,

I am not aware of any state that allows a person to have multiple SNAP cards. SNAP is the only real "food stamps" program and is mostly funded by the Feds and administered by the states. Since only one card is issued per household, how would a person legally have multiple?

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Jay I am a bit surprised by your take here as well. What with your understanding of media and how it works. I will assume that you took Dins' straw man hook, line and sinker.
Not buying into any straw man hook, just making (an over-emphasized) point that the "facts" stated were of the items that were missing, made no relevance as to a sense of fraud. It has been pointed out that she had more than one EBT card, and on the surface that would be fraudulent. Could they have been cards from other family members who had qualified for food stamps? Probably not, but there could be a rational explanation.

She admitted to having multiple Food Stamp cards. That is fraud. You make other arguements that she could have a family members card etc. That is also fraud.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Just exactly how is a crime blotter blurb manipulative and worthless? It contains info from the filed police report. There is no opinon given from the person who complied the blurb, police or victim. All facts are credited to the victim or the police report, ie the victim. Maybe the blurb was edited down to include only statements but that is hardly manipulative.
This is where I said I over-emphasized things. While the report is not worthless, because it appears to be minus some details, you see the reaction it has gotten in this thread alone. Without the specifics, it engenders emotional response, good or bad. Media can be manipulative in different ways, and while this article wasn't designed to deliberately be so, it still is.

Much of the response in this thread is to someone on food stamps having a decent amount of cash and a purse and wallet more expensive than most of our wives or girlfriends carry. But as most of us agree that is completely irrelevant. The specifics you claim are lacking are in fact her accidental confession of fraud.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Left Seater wrote:The facts are well established here, unless you want to argue the honesty of the victim, which I wasn't doing. I am taking her at her word that the purse was stolen, with the items she claims we're contained therein.
No argument about this, unless otherwise discovered, you have to take her at her word.

The money she had, the price of the purse and wallet, all of this is white noise, as there could be any number of reasons for her to have those things, that amount of cash and still have food stamps. Not saying it doesn't look questionable, not saying it isn't fraud, just saying it might not be. Wait for the complete story, then start bashing.

We agree that the cash and purse are all noise, yet here you again tie these items back to her having food stamps. Not necessary. Just more white noise. She has already confessed.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Right now it seems much ado over very little.

And there is the problem. Someone accidentally admits to committing fraud and it is "much ado over very little." That mindset needs to change.

Jay in Phoenix · Post by **Jay in Phoenix** » Wed May 14, 2014 7:45 pm

Okay LS, let me re-address your logical perspective about this situation.

First, I've never dealt directly with food stamps, never researched it so the idea of one card per household was new news to me. I thought it went on a case by case, person to person basis, but what you say does make sense and sounds correct. So, taking this as true, her having multiple cards would be fraudulent. Even if for some reason, that she had food stamps belonging to other people outside her family, using them for herself you also be fraud, IF that is what she was doing.

Now then, I am not tying the other items and cash into this as a factor, others did. I pointed out, as you did, that those items were irrelevant. This is the much ado I'm speaking of, not the multiple cards. You are right on all phases of this, no argument. So why then, if she indeed had multiple cards, is there no mention in the article specifying this as a problem? Did the police site her with a crime? Were the multiple cards referring to other sorts of cards, like credit or debit cards and the article writer made an error, or the information was transcribed incorrectly? It's not like this is a highly detailed piece of investigative journalism, just a quick hit story and who is to say there may or may not be errors.

I don't want to make excuses for this woman or anyone committing fraud. If she did, let her pay the price. My point is, there is a lot of assumption being made here, based on a blurb of an article with some generic "facts" and no direct quote from the police or the "victim". If there are no further details, or if this woman isn't charged with anything, then it will be much ado over nothing. If she actually confessed to and committed fraud, let her burn.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Wed May 14, 2014 8:39 pm

Jay in Phoenix wrote: So why then, if she indeed had multiple cards, is there no mention in the article specifying this as a problem? Did the police site her with a crime?

Most police blotter columns are just cut and paste from the local police reports. An intern or other low level employee edits the info for space. Further, I don't think the Police can cite her. Can the Police cite you for not paying your income tax? The Police would have to report this to the local SNAP office, for them to follow up on. That is unlikely to happen.

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Wed May 14, 2014 9:37 pm

According to my source in the CA Social Security office, in CA, you can legally have two cards that are "your" cards only if one is expired (I not sure why you would tell cops about an expired card) or if you are the guardian or whatnot for someone who lives in another house who had a right to a card.

Waynegro · Post by **Waynegro** » Wed May 14, 2014 9:50 pm

Another thing that needs to be considered about the woman is how big are her tits.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu May 15, 2014 1:35 pm

LOL

This thread is awesome!

LS wrote:Pop, Jay and Wagon also need to go back and do a little more reading. Or are you ok supporting Dins' straw man?

Jay wrote:My point is, there is a lot of assumption being made here, based on a blurb of an article with some generic "facts" and no direct quote from the police or the "victim".

Yep.

poptart wrote:While the picture is cute, and provokes a knee-jerk reaction from those sickened by government waste, it proves exactly... nothing.

Yep.

LS, if this blurb in the paper is PROOF that this woman has committed fraud, they the police can just show up at her home, arrest her, and a judge can punish her -- with no need for any further questioning on the matter.

Just based on this blurb in the paper.

LS wrote:Further, I don't think the Police can cite her. Can the Police cite you for not paying your income tax? The Police would have to report this to the local SNAP office, for them to follow up on. That is unlikely to happen.

Why again where you lecturing me, Jay, and Wagon for agreeing with what Dinsdale said?

Yes, there would have to be some... FOLLOW UP, as this blurb in the paper PROVES nothing.

Go squat on a dick, you ridiculous blowhard.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu May 15, 2014 2:56 pm

Just because the Police can't cite her doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Thu May 15, 2014 3:20 pm

Left Seater wrote:Just because the Police can't cite her doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

Just to be clear, are you saying she could be in violation of fraud, or is?

Moving Sale · Post by **Moving Sale** » Thu May 15, 2014 3:29 pm

The TWO ebt cards is a huge red flag and it sounds like there are very few fact patterns where it is legal. As far as being cited in CA she absolutely can be cited. The cops might not do it but the SSD would.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu May 15, 2014 4:03 pm

MGO,

Until someone shows a valid reason for having two SNAP cards which is permitted by the issuing authority then I am saying she is guilty. She confessed to having multiple cards.

I volunteered for a few summers recently with the Houston Housing Authority and called my contact there. Anyone in possession of two SNAP cards is in violation of the terms of the program.

Further, since this paper is from Georgia, a quick glance at the DHS site in Georgia confirms that Food Stamp cards are distributed on a household basis.

Left Seater · Post by **Left Seater** » Thu May 15, 2014 4:24 pm

She freaking confessed!

In your world since she did so by accident I guess that means the confession shouldn't count. Nothing to see here. Forget all about it.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Thu May 15, 2014 10:14 pm

What names were on... her cards, and when were they issued?

Do you know these facts?
I mean, since she confessed and everything.

lol

ARREST HER NOW!!!
WE SEE A FEW LINES IN THE NEWSPAPER!!

Wolfman · Post by **Wolfman** » Fri May 16, 2014 12:34 am

I have little doubt that fraud and theft are rampant. Of course no one will have the balls to scrap these programs. I have a question for those who may know. Can a SNAP or WIC card or whatever be used to get "cash back" like a debit card? I saw this young lady purchase a bottle of water, get what looked like at least $60 in cash, and proceeded to the Lotto window to buy tickets for that night's draw. I couldn't see the card she used. I know I've actually seen people use food stamps to purchase staples like bread and milk and then use a credit/debit card to buy say crab legs and beer, then take their stuff out to their Escalade. Nice.

smackaholic · Post by **smackaholic** » Fri May 16, 2014 12:42 am

Papa Willie wrote:Got some friends out there (from here) that just had to leave their home. They're not particularly crazy about SD at all...

I think you are looking for the firenado thread across the hall.