T1B

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 1:19 am**

Papa Willie wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
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.
Hey man - that's no way to fuck with a Sr. Citizen!!!!!!!!

(you would be correct - don't know how I did that!)

You're not only fat. You're senile.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 1:44 am**

Wolfman wrote: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.

I don't know about other states, but in Arizona, EBT (food stamp) cards can be used for debit and cash purposes, dependent upon how the card is issued. Usually, it is strictly for food purchase, but there are guidelines in place that allow for families to have access to normal debit charges, including cash back. I've seen it used that way any number of times. It's bureaucratically stupid, but that is how it's set up.

While I still see the point LS is making here, It is still not clear evidence of a case of pure fraud in this story. If we ever get the entire set of facts, it will likely present as a fraudulent situation and this woman will pay for having more than one card. The one fact that we have here is that we have no specific clarification of what that line about "cards" entailed. What if one or more were expired? What if one were lost or reported missing, only to turn up later, thereby the cards were simply duplicates of themselves?

Wait for the full story and the full facts before banging the growling gavel of guilt.

GUILTY...of something! I'll figure it out later.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 2:22 am**

While you have a point Jay that one of the cards she claims was stolen was expired or a replacement, why in the hell would she keep the expired card and more importantly why worry about a stolen card that no longer works.

If AZ allows debit transactions off of SNAP cards they are likely the only state left that does anymore. Back in the day when paper stamps were actually issued, people were given cash as change if they didn't use the full face value of said stamp. This then lead to people buying a carton of milk with their $50 food stamp voucher and getting $48 back in cash. This vpcash was then immediately used for cancer sticks, or booze, or dry goods, etc. All in violation of the terms of the program but unenforceable.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 2:29 am**

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

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

Since you don't seem to care about the particulars of SNAP cards he is a little education for you. If both of the names on her cards are in fact hers, she is in violation of the terms of the program. Since you are only to have one card at a time. If a card is lost and reissued and then later found the older card is to be returned to the State office or destroyed.

If the two or more cards in her possession have any name but hers, it is a clear violation of the terms of the SNAP program.

So regardless of what names are on the cards, just having multiple in your possession, regardless of the names is fraudulent.

It matters not what you may think of such rules.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 2:49 am**

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

You said she committed fraud and that she has confessed.
That can not be absolutely concluded by looking at this blurb which appeared in a newspaper.

Did you stop to consider that there is a lengthy list of ways what appears here could have been produced incorrectly, or with incorrect information?

Even if we assume that what is written is 100% accurate, there is still a variety of ways in which circumstances might exonerate the woman from the charge of... fraud you have pronounced her guilty of.

Ask Jsc.

If you maintain your take, that she is guilty of fraud based just on this blurb, you seriously belong with Blinko up on the Mount Rushmore of Clowns.

You are a frighteningly funny man.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 12:33 pm**

I made one assumption. That this blurb was taken directly from the police report.

If that is the case, then she has committed fraud and said so herself. This is not debatable no matter how you want to label me.

If it is not a cut and paste from the Police report, so be it, we will need to wait and see.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 1:07 pm**

Think about this...

1) We don't know if the blurb came, letter for letter, from the police report.

2) If it did, we still don't know with 100% certainty that the police report had all the information correct.

3) We know nothing about the food stamp cards which the blurb said were... "hers."

4) We know nothing about potential extenuating circumstances which might exonerate her... if it appears that fraud has actually been committed.

And #5 is the real kicker...

5) We don't even know for sure that there WAS a purse, or cards -- because the blurb says that it is her claim that the purse (and other things) are missing. Let that sink in.

lol

We know nothing, as Dinsdale basically said.

I think it's funny that he gave you an F.

Well earned.

And carrying on now about it for 2 pages should earn you a little in-school suspension time.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 1:36 pm**

So now the lady was not telling the truth. :doh:

The one thing we can agree on is two pages is enough.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 1:44 pm**

No, two pages are too many.

Trots this waste of bandwidth.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 8:10 pm**

Liberals are very proficient at spending other peoples' money.

Sin,
MA

JSC, if you want it expanded -- bucky up your own cash and expand it. Better yet, start a charity to help those who are underfed. Believe it or not (lefties don't like to believe anything that doesn't fit their dogma), I know some extremely... we'll call them "libertarians," who generally oppose all such government largesse, who have spent... wait for it... THEIR OWN MONEY helping the less fortunate. Seems the Lefty-D types laugh at this notion.

And I'll bet my friends' charity doesn't get scammed by grifters, either.

Man, charity as a voluntary function -- what a crazy idea. The JSCs of the world would rather put a gun to other people's heads and force them to pay for such things, which means LeftyD doesn't have to pay for his idealism himself.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 8:50 pm**

Jsc810 wrote: designed to help the least fortunate citizens.

It's full of design flaws. But like a lot of gov't entitlement program, no one has enough balls to step up and fix it because when a class of people so reliant and capable of abusing the program also happen to make up your base of voters, why mess with it and fix it?

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 8:55 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:If you want to cut government, then do so by cutting things that benefit billionaires and millionaire, not those things that are designed to help junkies, queers, nogs, retards, bums, illegals, or basically 99% of the Democratic voter base.

Posted: **Fri May 16, 2014 9:06 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:If you want to cut government, then do so by cutting things that benefit billionaires and millionaire, not those things that are designed to help the least fortunate citizens.

Any particular reason why we can't do both?

If any Federal expenditure or program is not specifically authorized by the Constitution, it needs to be eliminated immediately. The States can pick up the slack or not as they chose.

Your personal problems should not be an issue of national concern.

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2014 10:17 pm**

What about veterans?

Posted: **Sat May 17, 2014 10:20 pm**

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:What about veterans?

Veterans are compensated according to what is essentially a contract, while no such "contract" exists to take money from Peter to grossly overfeed KCPaul.

The easy solution there is to create substantially less veterans... duh.

T1B

why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program

Re: why we need to do away with the food stamps program