Was Paul Ryan's remark inarticulate or racist?

[Anonymous]

That's estimated fraud rate. But ad-hoc investigations end up showing the numbers to be significantly higher than that.

But hey, PP claimed Wards 7 and 8 were all gainfully employed and everything was hunky dory - so by that claim we shouldn't need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's estimated fraud rate. But ad-hoc investigations end up showing the numbers to be significantly higher than that.

But hey, PP claimed Wards 7 and 8 were all gainfully employed and everything was hunky dory - so by that claim we shouldn't need it.

uh, no. I said that 80% are working. Sorry if statistics trouble you.

Speaking of statistic please show data to say the rate is significantly higher. Millions and millions of people use their benefits responsibly, so citing some news articles is not going to cut it.

[Anonymous]

As for statistics, I was just using your own muddled understanding given your previous mixup between "all" versus "some".

The articles provide the evidence that it is a serious problem. Here's another one from Buffalo NY. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/niagara-county/welfare-fraud-investigations-crackdown-on-those-who-cheat-the-system-20140316 Half a million dollars a year in welfare fraud turned up by just one investigator's case load - but they figure there is significantly more beyond that (and accordingly are planning to add more investigators).

That's half a million dollars a year that could have gone to improve schools or for other more useful purposes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As for statistics, I was just using your own muddled understanding given your previous mixup between "all" versus "some".

The articles provide the evidence that it is a serious problem. Here's another one from Buffalo NY. http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/niagara-county/welfare-fraud-investigations-crackdown-on-those-who-cheat-the-system-20140316 Half a million dollars a year in welfare fraud turned up by just one investigator's case load - but they figure there is significantly more beyond that (and accordingly are planning to add more investigators).

That's half a million dollars a year that could have gone to improve schools or for other more useful purposes.

Ok you seem to not understand the difference between statistics and anecdotes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't have to sell the cards - they can resell the items they buy and in fact it happens all the time on Craigslist and elsewhere.

So basically the only program that would satisfy a republican is a lunch counter where you eat and then leave, fully supervised the whole time. Because if you give something to a person, they might resell it.

Fabulous.

If they are reselling it, that suggests they didn't really need it and probably shouldn't be getting it. If you don't like my opinion or attitude, fix the problems. I'll be happy to change my mind when the situation changes, but until then if you are excusing or defending it then you're part of the problem.

So as long as you can ever find a case of fraud, you object to government programs to help the poor. I suppose you won't drive a car until someone makes one that causes zero deaths.

One or two individuals committing fraud here and there is one thing but the article above talking about Baltimore indicated that 39 businesses were actively participating in welfare fraud as well. And that's just Baltimore. To me that indicates a big and widespread fraud problem that is institutionalized. Again, as long as you are deflecting, minimizing and denying, you are part of the problem.

Exactly.

And as known-fraudulent activity, the people doing it are generally not that open to speaking publicly about their fraudulent activities. So pointing to estimates as hard facts in this case is laughable. The numbers are by their nature on the low end of the reality on the street.

What critics of SNAP object to is not helping the poor. What we object to most is the fraud and diversion of our hard earned money to those who don't need it, but are taking it anyway. We also object to programs that seem to lack safeguards to prevent fraud and an apparent lack of interest in stopping the fraud that is happening. The apparent ability to use the cards at ATMs for cash is a huge invitation to fraud and should never have happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't have to sell the cards - they can resell the items they buy and in fact it happens all the time on Craigslist and elsewhere.

So basically the only program that would satisfy a republican is a lunch counter where you eat and then leave, fully supervised the whole time. Because if you give something to a person, they might resell it.

Fabulous.

But, freedom! They're the party that stands for freedom. Unless you're poor. Or a pregnant woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't have to sell the cards - they can resell the items they buy and in fact it happens all the time on Craigslist and elsewhere.

So basically the only program that would satisfy a republican is a lunch counter where you eat and then leave, fully supervised the whole time. Because if you give something to a person, they might resell it.

Fabulous.

If they are reselling it, that suggests they didn't really need it and probably shouldn't be getting it. If you don't like my opinion or attitude, fix the problems. I'll be happy to change my mind when the situation changes, but until then if you are excusing or defending it then you're part of the problem.

So as long as you can ever find a case of fraud, you object to government programs to help the poor. I suppose you won't drive a car until someone makes one that causes zero deaths.

One or two individuals committing fraud here and there is one thing but the article above talking about Baltimore indicated that 39 businesses were actively participating in welfare fraud as well. And that's just Baltimore. To me that indicates a big and widespread fraud problem that is institutionalized. Again, as long as you are deflecting, minimizing and denying, you are part of the problem.

Exactly.

And as known-fraudulent activity, the people doing it are generally not that open to speaking publicly about their fraudulent activities. So pointing to estimates as hard facts in this case is laughable. The numbers are by their nature on the low end of the reality on the street.

What critics of SNAP object to is not helping the poor. What we object to most is the fraud and diversion of our hard earned money to those who don't need it, but are taking it anyway. We also object to programs that seem to lack safeguards to prevent fraud and an apparent lack of interest in stopping the fraud that is happening. The apparent ability to use the cards at ATMs for cash is a huge invitation to fraud and should never have happened.

And what others (and now me) are saying is that isn't it interesting that your vehement objections to fraud and waste are reserved for those programs that help the poor. Give the IRS sufficient assets to track tax cheats? It's the jackbooted foot of oppression on honest Americans. Cut fraud in defense programs? Why do you hate the troops? Forget bank bailouts and prosecute the offending executives? Those industries are essential to our econometric, and god forbid your 401k take a hit while fighting fraud.

At best, you are hypocrites. More likely, though, your fight against fraud is a facade for your true attitude: "They're poor? Fuck 'em".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People don't have to sell the cards - they can resell the items they buy and in fact it happens all the time on Craigslist and elsewhere.

So basically the only program that would satisfy a republican is a lunch counter where you eat and then leave, fully supervised the whole time. Because if you give something to a person, they might resell it.

Fabulous.

If they are reselling it, that suggests they didn't really need it and probably shouldn't be getting it. If you don't like my opinion or attitude, fix the problems. I'll be happy to change my mind when the situation changes, but until then if you are excusing or defending it then you're part of the problem.

So as long as you can ever find a case of fraud, you object to government programs to help the poor. I suppose you won't drive a car until someone makes one that causes zero deaths.

One or two individuals committing fraud here and there is one thing but the article above talking about Baltimore indicated that 39 businesses were actively participating in welfare fraud as well. And that's just Baltimore. To me that indicates a big and widespread fraud problem that is institutionalized. Again, as long as you are deflecting, minimizing and denying, you are part of the problem.

Exactly.

And as known-fraudulent activity, the people doing it are generally not that open to speaking publicly about their fraudulent activities. So pointing to estimates as hard facts in this case is laughable. The numbers are by their nature on the low end of the reality on the street.

What critics of SNAP object to is not helping the poor. What we object to most is the fraud and diversion of our hard earned money to those who don't need it, but are taking it anyway. We also object to programs that seem to lack safeguards to prevent fraud and an apparent lack of interest in stopping the fraud that is happening. The apparent ability to use the cards at ATMs for cash is a huge invitation to fraud and should never have happened.

And what others (and now me) are saying is that isn't it interesting that your vehement objections to fraud and waste are reserved for those programs that help the poor. Give the IRS sufficient assets to track tax cheats? It's the jackbooted foot of oppression on honest Americans. Cut fraud in defense programs? Why do you hate the troops? Forget bank bailouts and prosecute the offending executives? Those industries are essential to our econometric, and god forbid your 401k take a hit while fighting fraud.

At best, you are hypocrites. More likely, though, your fight against fraud is a facade for your true attitude: "They're poor? Fuck 'em".

Exactly. All they have to do is find a few cases of fraud and then they have their justification for opposing food for poor children. Jesus would be proud.

[Anonymous]

Oh, I think Jesus would approve of charity--not government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I think Jesus would approve of charity--not government.

Jesus would approve of society helping the poor. Making some arbitrary argument about whether it's strictly charity or suggesting it cannot or should not be government however is nonsensical and totally unsupported by the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels. Government is part of society every bit as much as charities are. And, government provides a far more effective and efficient mechanism for helping the poor.

[Anonymous]

I'm not a Republican or conservative but I do have a problem with fraud.

Wanting to reduce fraud IS NOT the same as not wanting to help the poor, and it's a bullshit argument to automatically equate the two. It's not that simple.

As a taxpayer, it's ultimately MY MONEY. Therefore I expect accountability. If it's genuinely helping the poor, great. That's something that makes me feel good as a human. But if it's going into a scam, I am right to be outraged.

[Anonymous]

The point is there are FAR larger scams to be worried about than these. Look, perhaps, at the farm subsidies which are in the VERY SAME BILL as the SNAP funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The point is there are FAR larger scams to be worried about than these. Look, perhaps, at the farm subsidies which are in the VERY SAME BILL as the SNAP funds.

Yes, there are lots of scams that we should be worried about and I agree farm subsidies are horrifically misplaced - I'd by far prefer to see subsidies to support smaller, more local family farmers, (as opposed to ConAgra, ADM et cetera who post massive profits), along with more genuinely supporting food security - horrifying to see that we import produce from places like China.

But that does not excuse any scam and does not merit the deflection. Why defend any scam? Every penny counts and it constantly sickens me to think that people seem to act like the tax revenue just grows on trees by itself - whether it's big corporate scams, whether it's wars fought abroad, or whether it's people scamming benefits.

[Anonymous]

Every penny counts and it constantly sickens me to think that people seem to act like the tax revenue just grows on trees by itself - whether it's big corporate scams, whether it's wars fought abroad, or whether it's people scamming benefits.

Then why does it seem that the only funding bills that are hung up due to perceived fraud and waste are the ones that benefit poor people, instead of big corporations or the military-industrial complex? Yes, every penny counts. But relative to those, fraud within the SNAP program is pennies and within those other programs, Franklins. Why does it always come down to the "inner city" people buying lobster instead of the banks who received bailouts giving out million-dollar bonuses, and the Pentagon buying $2000 hammers?

[Anonymous]

And - you will love this - the ACA uncovered $4.3 billion in Medicare and Medicaid fraud! The Tea Party fiscal conservatives should be standing up and cheering!

http://www.examiner.com/article/affordable-care-act-recovers-record-amount-from-healthcare-fraud