HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Fairfax County General :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: FfxU Civic News ()
Date: September 19, 2013 11:02PM

HR 3102: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act
Roll Call Vote #497
9/19/2013

YEA (for passage)
Cantor (R-7), Forbes (R-4), Goodlatte (R-6), Griffith (R-9), Hurt (R-5), Rigel (R-2), Wittman (R-1)

NAY (against)
Connolly (D-11), Moran (D-8), Scott (D-3), Wolf (R-10)

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll476.xml

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: oldguy ()
Date: September 19, 2013 11:22PM

FfxU Civic News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HR 3102: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity
> Act
> Roll Call Vote #497
> 9/19/2013
>
> YEA (for passage)
> Cantor (R-7), Forbes (R-4), Goodlatte (R-6),
> Griffith (R-9), Hurt (R-5), Rigel (R-2), Wittman
> (R-1)
>
> NAY (against)
> Connolly (D-11), Moran (D-8), Scott (D-3),
> Wolf (R-10)
>
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll476.xml


Fantastic. They cut 4 billion from the food stamp program. Now if we can just figure some way to recoup the additional 15 trillion, (that is 15 thousand billion), 996 billion plus that we are in debt, we are home free. The politicians do this so they can tell us they have done something, when really they haven't done jack. What's worse is that we tend to believe them and hold up those who voted to cut this funding as heroes.
How much is 16 trillion? Think of it this way. The highest estimate I have heard for the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy, our galaxy by the way, is 500 billion. If each star were a dollar bill, it would take 32 Milky Way galaxies to pay off our debt now, and they will soon be voting to RAISE the debt ceiling. We are so screwed. Actually, an advantage for me is that I am an oldguy. My future is dust. Young people, YOU are so screwed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Wasted Energy and Effort ()
Date: September 19, 2013 11:25PM

FfxU Civic News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HR 3102: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity
> Act
> Roll Call Vote #497
> 9/19/2013
>
> YEA (for passage)
> Cantor (R-7), Forbes (R-4), Goodlatte (R-6),
> Griffith (R-9), Hurt (R-5), Rigel (R-2), Wittman
> (R-1)
>
> NAY (against)
> Connolly (D-11), Moran (D-8), Scott (D-3),
> Wolf (R-10)
>
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll476.xml

The problem with the bill is that says if you're an able-bodied adult you have to have at least part-time work or be enrolled in a jobs training program, yet provides no incentive to employers to create more jobs nor funding for the states to implement jobs training programs.

The Republicans passed it simply because, having the majority, they knew they could, knowing full well that Obama is going to veto it and it will never become law.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: From Da Hood -- The Original ()
Date: September 20, 2013 12:18AM

Just because Gerry and Jim voted against this reform doesn't mean that their slimy hands didn't want something else, or far greater. This is politics. Jim and Gerry are holding out for something better -- much more devastating to the U.S. taxpayer, which is why they voted "no" this time.

Yet, the Liberals are all doing the happy dance and thinking they have some fantastic news that Jim and Gerry really are supporting some conservative values while in office. All I can say is: Bull Shit!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: yJdVn ()
Date: September 20, 2013 01:34AM

Wasted Energy and Effort Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem with the bill is that says if you're
> an able-bodied adult you have to have at least
> part-time work or be enrolled in a jobs training
> program, yet provides no incentive to employers to
> create more jobs nor funding for the states to
> implement jobs training programs.


Not true as I understand it. Most of the legitimate exemptions to the work requirement which now exist (and there are quite a few) are maintained and the work requirement can be met by voluntary community service. The job training exemption already is used in the same way under current guidelines now, so that's nothing new that they've created.

But you're right, it's basically pointless since it's going nowhere.

Options: ReplyQuote
Goodlatte
Posted by: Rockhound ()
Date: September 20, 2013 01:56AM

So Rep. Goodlatte voted yes?! Screw him I'm voting for Cappuccino next time!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: janet ()
Date: September 20, 2013 09:25AM

I was a hungry kid once. Isn't fun.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: liberal logic 27 ()
Date: September 20, 2013 10:49AM

FfxU Civic News Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> HR 3102: Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity
> Act
> Roll Call Vote #497
> 9/19/2013
>
> YEA (for passage)
> Cantor (R-7), Forbes (R-4), Goodlatte (R-6),
> Griffith (R-9), Hurt (R-5), Rigel (R-2), Wittman
> (R-1)
>
> NAY (against)
> Connolly (D-11), Moran (D-8), Scott (D-3),
> Wolf (R-10)
>
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll476.xml

HR 3102 is a stupid-assed GOP-tard PR stunt. It'll die, as it should, peacefully the Senate. I am PROUD of Gerry, Frank, & Jim for voting against it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: soscewd ()
Date: September 20, 2013 11:25AM

We'll vote in favor of bailing out billion dollar companies that willfully overextend themselves to the point of being bankrupt but we'll vote in favor of cutting "bail outs" to actual individuals needing to put food on their table because those same companies we bailed out laid them off so their CEO can maintain his 7 figure bonus.

The combination result of people still believing in Reagan's "Welfare Queen" lie & our focus on trickle down economics.

I got one for the Gipper, it's called a great big middle finger.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Ron R. ()
Date: September 20, 2013 11:55AM

soscewd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We'll vote in favor of bailing out billion dollar
> companies that willfully overextend themselves to
> the point of being bankrupt but we'll vote in
> favor of cutting "bail outs" to actual individuals
> needing to put food on their table because those
> same companies we bailed out laid them off so
> their CEO can maintain his 7 figure bonus.
>
> The combination result of people still believing
> in Reagan's "Welfare Queen" lie & our focus on
> trickle down economics.
>
> I got one for the Gipper, it's called a great big
> middle finger.

You'll have to take that finger out of your mother's ass before you can give it to me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Realist ()
Date: September 20, 2013 11:57AM

These government programs are so rife with fraud, they should be ended until taxpayers can be reasonably assured the money is going where needed - and not just into the hands of chainsmoking, lazy, do-nothing, Obama-worshipping cable-tv watchers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Gerry Conman ()
Date: September 20, 2013 12:01PM

There's no reason why a welfare queen should have to stop smoking or illegal drugs, drive anything less than a Mercedes nor get anything less than the Cable Ultimate package just because she's on welfare. Similarly, I support the growth of the food stamp program to subsidize every American. Only then will we libs truly be able to control what you eat and how much of it you eat.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: A little more of a realist ()
Date: September 20, 2013 12:19PM

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These government programs are so rife with fraud,
> they should be ended until taxpayers can be
> reasonably assured the money is going where needed
> - and not just into the hands of chainsmoking,
> lazy, do-nothing, Obama-worshipping cable-tv
> watchers.

Unfortunately the sad fact is there are literally millions of people who have based their entire life on government handouts. And as much as I'd like to flip a switch and end it all, that would do more harm than good. Mass riots, huge spike in crime, "real" starvation, etc. You have to have a carefully managed reduction in benefits to gradually ween people off of the system.

Of course those that are committing fraud should get no such considerations, just end their benefits immediately and start prosecuting them.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: soscewd ()
Date: September 20, 2013 12:32PM

A little more of a realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These government programs are so rife with
> fraud,
> > they should be ended until taxpayers can be
> > reasonably assured the money is going where
> needed
> > - and not just into the hands of chainsmoking,
> > lazy, do-nothing, Obama-worshipping cable-tv
> > watchers.
>
> Unfortunately the sad fact is there are literally
> millions of people who have based their entire
> life on government handouts.


If you have actual proof of this occuring, you should report it and follow up until something is done about it. You could even earn a reward for reporting fraud & abuse.

Of course, if you don't have actual proof of this and are just basing it off assumptions and the subliminal imagery of Reagan's welfare queen story, you should question why your reality is so strongly tied to an unrational bias.

It has long been proven that Reagan's welfare queen story was false. It was made up specifically with the intent to create an us vs them storyline and people are STILL stuck on that storyline.

I'm not implying that there isn't SOME fraud going on with welfare and I'm not claiming that there aren't SOME families that are generational welfare collectors but people act like everybody on welfare is on some bullshit and it's fucking retarded.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: soscewd ()
Date: September 20, 2013 12:35PM

Ron R. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You'll have to take that finger out of your
> mother's ass before you can give it to me.


Ronald Reagan asking me to stick my finger in my mother's ass and then give it too him.

ROFL

I always thought there was something a little freaky-deeky about you and your plastic hairdo ya old Hollywood pervert.

Of course, I guess that makes sense considering Reagan was always full of shit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: svennestle ()
Date: September 20, 2013 07:33PM

but they know in the county a green foreigner is deciding who gets fs or not

they are total liars for even voting on it

they have no plan to go into every county to effect a change

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 20, 2013 07:49PM

Realist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These government programs are so rife with fraud,
> they should be ended until taxpayers can be
> reasonably assured the money is going where needed
> - and not just into the hands of chainsmoking,
> lazy, do-nothing, Obama-worshipping cable-tv
> watchers.

Stupid dumbfuck. Fraud rates in SNAP are very low, running at two percent or below in most states, and as low as one-half of one percent in states with effective enforcement regimes. And of course, the significant majority of such fraud as does occur is carried out by participating merchants, not by SNAP beneficiaries.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: From Da Hood -- The Original ()
Date: September 20, 2013 08:38PM

It's quite apparent that the OP for this thread is a Low Information Democrat, because he / she took the time to start such a thread. However, that the OP didn't indicate is that the suggestions for reform were actually created back in the '90s when Bill Clinton was in office.

This is a pretty interesting read if you want to get some more facts on which party voted for, or against this bill.


On Friday, Wall Street Journal editorial board members Mary Kissel and Stephen Moore tackled some of the claims made by Democrats relating to the House Republicans’ proposed reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). While many Democrats are insisting that the GOP is simply taking food away from hungry and impoverished people, they said, the GOP is actually insisting on instituting reforms that were embraced by President Bill Clinton when he signed a successful welfare reform law in the 1990s. “What has happened to the party?” Kissel asked.

“The Democrats are painting this as if we’re taking food out of the mouths of babies,” Kissel said.

Moore began by detailing what the proposed reforms to the SNAP program are aimed at accomplishing. He said that the SNAP budget has doubled and the number of recipients has boomed during President Barack Obama‘s administration.

“It’s by far the fastest growing entitlement program,” he said. “What Republicans propose to do was three pretty common sense reforms, in my opinion, Mary.”

Moore said that the reforms would ensure that eligible able adults without children must work or receive job training to receive nutrition assistance. The GOP’s proposed reforms would also scale back the funds allotted to the Agriculture Department to promote SNAP with the aim of expanding the number of food stamp recipients. Finally, Moore added, the reforms would tighten eligibility requirements to reduce the instances of fraud.


Link to full article at the WSJ: http://www.mediaite.com/online/wsjs-mary-kissel-democrats-voting-against-bill-clintons-reforms-for-food-stamps/

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: True Blue ()
Date: September 20, 2013 11:13PM

From Da Hood -- The Original Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's quite apparent that the OP for this thread is
> a Low Information Democrat, because he / she took
> the time to start such a thread. However, that
> the OP didn't indicate is that the suggestions for
> reform were actually created back in the '90s when
> Bill Clinton was in office.


Attachments:
Your _Anger.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Rockhound ()
Date: September 20, 2013 11:16PM

Gerry Conman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no reason why a welfare queen should have
> to stop smoking or illegal drugs, drive anything
> less than a Mercedes nor get anything less than
> the Cable Ultimate package just because she's on
> welfare. Similarly, I support the growth of the
> food stamp program to subsidize every American.
> Only then will we libs truly be able to control
> what you eat and how much of it you eat.


Welfare is like 300-400 a month, on a food only card... How the fuck would "a welfare queen" be able to afford insurance with that kind of money. Full of shit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Snapper ()
Date: September 21, 2013 12:11PM

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Realist Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > These government programs are so rife with
> fraud,
> > they should be ended until taxpayers can be
> > reasonably assured the money is going where
> needed
> > - and not just into the hands of chainsmoking,
> > lazy, do-nothing, Obama-worshipping cable-tv
> > watchers.
>
> Stupid dumbfuck. Fraud rates in SNAP are very
> low, running at two percent or below in most
> states, and as low as one-half of one percent in
> states with effective enforcement regimes. And of
> course, the significant majority of such fraud as
> does occur is carried out by participating
> merchants, not by SNAP beneficiaries.

BS. Your 2% number is based on the program's own estimates which they have little basis for and amount to a number that they just pulled out of their butts because they have no real numbers. The truth is that nobody really knows mostly because there's little to no effort or desire to actively police it. The direction of the program, its programmatic mission, metrics and incentives, all are focused on getting more benefits out to more people. There's no emphasis or incentives for anyone at the Federal or state levels to ensure that the money actually is serving the intended purpose in any effective way. More = better. Period. All else is an afterthought. There are few states who have any kind of enforcement regimes because there's a trivial emphasis and an according level of funding allocated to do any enforcement.

Attempting to place blame solely on merchants ignores the fact that in these types of cases for every fraudulent transaction there's a willing beneficiary involved as an active participant. It's also apparent that there are many more directly among participants but they're much harder to detect and track and aren't chased as much. The merchant-facilitated fraud represent the bigger point-source fish with a greater bang for the investigative buck so that's what gets the attention. There's very likely much more at the smaller level but given how that works and the program is designed you'd spend as much money as you're giving out trying to chase it. The way that the program operates needs to be changed to do much of anything about that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Interesting ()
Date: September 21, 2013 12:34PM

^ Wow. An intelligent rebuttal. Unheard of around here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 21, 2013 04:00PM

Snapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS. Your 2% number is based on the program's own
> estimates which they have little basis for and
> amount to a number that they just pulled out of
> their butts because they have no real numbers.

Great! Another know-nothing FOX-fed douchebag. Fraud rates are derived from regular state and federal audits by such agencies as GAO. The only rates that come from the program itself are processing error rates that are running at about 3.5%, the lowest level in history despite the highest workload in history.

> The truth is that nobody really knows mostly
> because there's little to no effort or desire to
> actively police it.

Oh, go fuck yourself, dickwad. The truth is that you haven't got the first little tiny fucking idea of what you are talking about. You're just another poorly educated right-wing dumbfuck with nothing better to do that shoot his damned fool mouth off. There are fraud units and field investigators dedicated to SNAP and to virtually every other such federal or federal/state program. You either don't care or are just plain too stupid to know anything about it.

> The direction of the program, its programmatic mission,
> metrics and incentives, all are focused on getting more
> benefits out to more people. There's no emphasis or
> incentives for anyone at the Federal or state levels to
> ensure that the money actually is serving the intended
> purpose in any effective way. More = better.
> Period. All else is an afterthought.

What a load of mindless crap! There are very simple tests and limits for programn eligibility. These are related to household income and resources. If you meet those tests and limits, you are eligible for and ultimately receive a predefined level of benefits. If you don't meet those tests and limits, you are eligible for and ultimately receive exactly nothing.

As you no doubt also fail to understand, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits has been falling since late last year. The slowly improving economy is at last starting to eat into the huge numbers of people who were thrown into SNAP eligibility by the massive economic collapse that resulted from all those years of totally failed asswipe dumb-fuck right-wing free-market laissez-faire economic policies. That's what drove the numbers up, though I imagine you to be far too stupid to be able to comprehend the fact.

> There are few states who have any kind of enforcement
> regimes because there's a trivial emphasis and an
> according level of funding allocated to do any
> enforcement.

Total fucking moron. Every state has an enforcement regime. Some are obviously better than others, and some have also been affected by the Great Fucking Bush Recession just as all those new beneficiaries were. The facts remain that state fraud rates are typically at 2% or below, running as low as one-half of 1% in states that put some effort into it, with the great majority of all fraud being perpetrated by participating merchants and next to none by actual recipients. Those are the facts.

> Attempting to place blame solely on merchants
> ignores the fact that in these types of cases for
> every fraudulent transaction there's a willing
> beneficiary involved as an active participant.

Crooked merchants try to pad their SNAP sales via all sorts of illegal means. They fence smuggled and stolen goods. They double-scan purchases or palm bar codes for goods a customer didn't purchase. Since some bad apples can indeed be found in any grouo of 45 million people or so, crooked merchants try to identify and recruit them into other scams and frauds. But the vast majority of SNAP recipients in fact use their benefits to feed themselves and their families exactly as the program intends. Your baseless imaginations and speculations do not change a single fucking thing.

> It's also apparent that there are many more
> directly among participants but they're much
> harder to detect and track and aren't chased as
> much.

How is that apparent, numb-nuts? You have no access to any program information at all. You take everything you think you know about SNAP from some dumb-ass right-wing propaganda outlet. That's what's fucking apparent here.

> The merchant-facilitated fraud represent the bigger
> point-source fish with a greater bang for the
> investigative buck so that's what gets the
> attention. There's very likely much more at the
> smaller level but given how that works and the
> program is designed you'd spend as much money as
> you're giving out trying to chase it. The way
> that the program operates needs to be changed to
> do much of anything about that.

Wake up, Dopey. Merchant fraud is the larger portion because it is merchants who commit the bulk of the fraud. Beneficiaries tend to buy food and then eat it. The program of course runs off EBT cards. There is a digital record of what a recipient purchases and what a merchant claims to have sold. Oddities and unexplained variances in the latter will trigger a review. Then penalties. Too bad there aren't similar penalties for asswipes who spread such feeble disinformation as you have.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Queen Michelle ()
Date: September 21, 2013 04:11PM

When was the last time you saw someone truly starving in this country. On the contrary this country is full of fat shits who could use some belt tightening. Liberals and the media will put up some google image of a white lady with two kids and a somber look on their faces wondering where their next meal is coming from. They ignore the fish market in DC where people use EBT cards to buy crabs and lobster.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Jim Moron ()
Date: September 21, 2013 04:12PM

gerry connolly could use some weight loss, chubby looks chubby

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: facts don't lie ()
Date: September 21, 2013 04:15PM

Queen Michelle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last time you saw someone truly
> starving in this country. On the contrary this
> country is full of fat shits who could use some
> belt tightening. Liberals and the media will put
> up some google image of a white lady with two kids
> and a somber look on their faces wondering where
> their next meal is coming from. They ignore the
> fish market in DC where people use EBT cards to
> buy crabs and lobster.

No, The libs focus on the niggs and illegal spics. That's all they have. people wanting shit for free and not paying their dues in life..fucking liberals, the down fall of society, along with the niggs and illegal spics.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Sharonista ()
Date: September 21, 2013 04:20PM

I am sure the store owners forced the welfare ticks to sell credits on their EBT cards for cash.

http://wtop.com/46/3455588/9-store-owners-indicted-in-food-stamp-fraud

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Baltimore said Tuesday that the store owners redeemed food stamp benefits in exchange for cash.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Snapper ()
Date: September 21, 2013 07:45PM

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS. Your 2% number is based on the program's
> own
> > estimates which they have little basis for and
> > amount to a number that they just pulled out of
> > their butts because they have no real numbers.
>
> Great! Another know-nothing FOX-fed douchebag.
> Fraud rates are derived from regular state and
> federal audits by such agencies as GAO. The only
> rates that come from the program itself are
> processing error rates that are running at about
> 3.5%, the lowest level in history despite the
> highest workload in history.
>

Wrong. USDA publishes a number of various estimates for different types of fraud within the program beyond 'processing error rates', e.g. trafficing:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/ProgramIntegrity/Trafficking2009.pdf

As well as rates for intentional program violations, i.e., intentional fraud, and regularly reports the same during oversight hearings and other periodic reporting:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/speeches/CT0072810.html


If you're going to reference a particular number then you might try citing your source(s).


> > The truth is that nobody really knows mostly
> > because there's little to no effort or desire
> to
> > actively police it.
>
> Oh, go fuck yourself, dickwad. The truth is that
> you haven't got the first little tiny fucking idea
> of what you are talking about. You're just
> another poorly educated right-wing dumbfuck with
> nothing better to do that shoot his damned fool
> mouth off. There are fraud units and field
> investigators dedicated to SNAP and to virtually
> every other such federal or federal/state program.
> You either don't care or are just plain too
> stupid to know anything about it.

^ What you write.

v What people read...

"Blah blah blah blah right-wing blah blah..." lol

Obviously they have some level of resources dedicated to fraud. That's not the issue. FNS and the states both regularly cite lack of resources to do any more than they do without taking away from program delivery.


>
> > The direction of the program, its programmatic
> mission,
> > metrics and incentives, all are focused on
> getting more
> > benefits out to more people. There's no emphasis
> or
> > incentives for anyone at the Federal or state
> levels to
> > ensure that the money actually is serving the
> intended
> > purpose in any effective way. More = better.
> > Period. All else is an afterthought.
>
> What a load of mindless crap! There are very
> simple tests and limits for programn eligibility.
> These are related to household income and
> resources. If you meet those tests and limits,
> you are eligible for and ultimately receive a
> predefined level of benefits. If you don't meet
> those tests and limits, you are eligible for and
> ultimately receive exactly nothing.

Duh. Which has nothing to do with prioritization of program resources, incentive structures, relative resources devoted to trafficking or other fraud, etc.


> As you no doubt also fail to understand, the
> number of people receiving SNAP benefits has been
> falling since late last year. The slowly
> improving economy is at last starting to eat into
> the huge numbers of people who were thrown into
> SNAP eligibility by the massive economic collapse
> that resulted from all those years of totally
> failed asswipe dumb-fuck right-wing free-market
> laissez-faire economic policies. That's what
> drove the numbers up, though I imagine you to be
> far too stupid to be able to comprehend the fact.
>

^ More off-point blah blah.


> > There are few states who have any kind of
> enforcement
> > regimes because there's a trivial emphasis and
> an
> > according level of funding allocated to do any
> > enforcement.
>
> Total fucking moron. Every state has an
> enforcement regime. Some are obviously better
> than others, and some have also been affected by
> the Great Fucking Bush Recession just as all those
> new beneficiaries were. The facts remain that
> state fraud rates are typically at 2% or below,
> running as low as one-half of 1% in states that
> put some effort into it, with the great majority
> of all fraud being perpetrated by participating
> merchants and next to none by actual recipients.
> Those are the facts.


All of which reflect the numbers coming FNS' and state's own estimates and are conditioned by both definition and scope. Outside more comprehensive estimates for broader fraud tend to be much higher. e.g., FL's official reported estimate .77 percent which reflects only over payments. A broader outside review commissioned by the state's Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Strike Force was 7.5%, not including trafficking. Knock yourself out criticizing that example, there are plenty of others all of which tend to show underestimation in the official reported numbers, the largest portion of the discrepancy resulting from simple definition and the limited scope for what's counted in the numbers.


> > Attempting to place blame solely on merchants
> > ignores the fact that in these types of cases
> for
> > every fraudulent transaction there's a willing
> > beneficiary involved as an active participant.
>
> Crooked merchants try to pad their SNAP sales via
> all sorts of illegal means. They fence smuggled
> and stolen goods. They double-scan purchases or
> palm bar codes for goods a customer didn't
> purchase. Since some bad apples can indeed be
> found in any grouo of 45 million people or so,
> crooked merchants try to identify and recruit them
> into other scams and frauds. But the vast
> majority of SNAP recipients in fact use their
> benefits to feed themselves and their families
> exactly as the program intends. Your baseless
> imaginations and speculations do not change a
> single fucking thing.
>
> > It's also apparent that there are many more
> > directly among participants but they're much
> > harder to detect and track and aren't chased as
> > much.
>
> How is that apparent, numb-nuts? You have no
> access to any program information at all. You
> take everything you think you know about SNAP from
> some dumb-ass right-wing propaganda outlet.
> That's what's fucking apparent here.


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27002-0011-13.pdf



> > The merchant-facilitated fraud represent the
> bigger
> > point-source fish with a greater bang for the
> > investigative buck so that's what gets the
> > attention. There's very likely much more at
> the
> > smaller level but given how that works and the
> > program is designed you'd spend as much money
> as
> > you're giving out trying to chase it. The way
> > that the program operates needs to be changed
> to
> > do much of anything about that.
>
> Wake up, Dopey. Merchant fraud is the larger
> portion because it is merchants who commit the
> bulk of the fraud. Beneficiaries tend to buy food
> and then eat it. The program of course runs off
> EBT cards. There is a digital record of what a
> recipient purchases and what a merchant claims to
> have sold. Oddities and unexplained variances in
> the latter will trigger a review. Then penalties.
> Too bad there aren't similar penalties for
> asswipes who spread such feeble disinformation as
> you have.


No, merchant fraud is the larger portion of *reported* fraud because they almost entirely concentrate limited resources only on identified cases of it. Retailer fraud is the primary responsibility of FNS versus individual fraud detection and enforcement which for the most part falls to the states (beyond limited audits of the state programs).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Heartless conservatives ()
Date: September 22, 2013 03:54PM

You people really want kids to starve

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Mo free barry ()
Date: September 22, 2013 04:11PM

Heartless conservatives Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You people really want kids to starve

Just where are all these starving kids. One look at the bus unloading kids at school will tell you most are obese.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: empty calories ()
Date: September 22, 2013 04:19PM

Kids are obese because the cheapest (and most convenient) food available is refined starch and sugar. It is cheap because it comes from grains that are mass produced and are easily stored and transported. This type of food gives a lot of calories, but does not give a lot of nutrition. The human body is "starved" on this food and wants more even though it will only get more of the same. This causes obesity.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Al L ()
Date: September 22, 2013 04:31PM

No they are obese because the moms are too lazy to fix something. Much easier for her to throw something in the microwave and press two minutes than it is to get her ass over a stove and fix a real meal. Include the lack of exercise since mom will hand the kid a video game or put him in front of the tv. Mom meanwhile spends her day texting her pals and bitching the government is doing a terrible job of raising her kids.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LandoverHo ()
Date: September 22, 2013 04:32PM

empty calories Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kids are obese because the cheapest (and most
> convenient) food available is refined starch and
> sugar. It is cheap because it comes from grains
> that are mass produced and are easily stored and
> transported. This type of food gives a lot of
> calories, but does not give a lot of nutrition.
> The human body is "starved" on this food and wants
> more even though it will only get more of the
> same. This causes obesity.

Kids are obese as a result of over eating and inactivity. PG County for example, is having an obesity problem cuz Mammy done to lazy to cook and she gotsta go play Bingo at Waysons Corner. Cant be both'in wit them chillins.

http://www.wtop.com/58/3460158/Bill-sets-out-to-tackle-obesity-rates-in-Prince-Georges-County

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: FX PG ()
Date: September 22, 2013 04:49PM

Mom will drive her Escalade through McDonalds drive thru for dinner, unless they are out of McNuggets then she calls 911. The only exercise the kids gets is running to their rooms when moms boyfriend of the week shows up for a booty call.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LandoverHo ()
Date: September 22, 2013 05:38PM

It's 2:00 p.m. on a weekday. Do you know where your children are?
It's noon on Saturday or Sunday. Do you know where your children are?

http://waysonbingo.com/

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 06:41PM

Interesting Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ^ Wow. An intelligent rebuttal. Unheard of around here.

You have mistaken pretension for intelligence. The other poster is a low-grade, dime-store hack of no redeeming social value at all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 06:57PM

Queen Michelle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When was the last time you saw someone truly
> starving in this country.

When was the last time you took an aspirin for a headache? Wait, let me guess...you're too fucking dumb to understand the point in that.

> On the contrary this country is full of fat shits
> who could use some belt tightening.

It's the FAT HEADS, not the fat bellies, who pose the greater risk around here.

> Liberals and the media will put up some google
> image of a white lady with two kids and a somber
> look on their faces wondering where their next
> meal is coming from. They ignore the fish market
> in DC where people use EBT cards to buy crabs and
> lobster.

I doubt you could find the fucking fish market, EBT cards have more than just SNAP benefits on them, and fresh seafood is eligible for purchase under SNAP. No actual beneficiary would use benefits in such a way of course, as the allotments are enough to get an individual or household through the month only if one works hard at it. Of course, know-nothing fuckwads and asswipes will ever have them showing up all bedecked in furs and jewels, buying their pounds and pounds of lobster, and then driving off in their brand new SUV's. HINT: You come as just another in a long line of worthless dumbfucks on this issue.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: AliceDee ()
Date: September 28, 2013 07:01PM

In England the media/government waged a hate campaign upon those on benefits. It got to a point where people were beating up people in wheelchairs...

They spent more money trying to "weed out fraud " then the fraud actually cost the government. It was found that a VERY small amount was truly fraud...

These people conspire to pay people as possibly little as they can get away with in the workforce. Production is at an all time high, wages an all time low, jobs are scarce, cost of living thorough the roof. All the ugly little people just pick on the even smaller people. Guess they fooled you into thinking you're actually in control, you're just a dog inside an invisible fence.

Like the mortgage crisis , the food jack up was planned long in advance, Goldman Sacks has made millions betting on it.

Keep imagining you're in a higher social sphere then you actually are and help beat up the poor for the rich, you're a fly with no wings.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 07:09PM

facts don't lie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, The libs focus on the niggs and illegal spics.
> That's all they have. people wanting shit for free
> and not paying their dues in life..fucking
> liberals, the down fall of society, along with the
> niggs and illegal spics.

The voice of another no-balls nativist wussy cowering among the scared and the ignorant. What a sorry excuse for an actual human being. Algae and pond scum are of more value to society.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 07:12PM

Sharonista Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am sure the store owners forced the welfare
> ticks to sell credits on their EBT cards for
> cash.

Yup, just like they force all those under-aged bastards to buy beer. Try growing up a little, asshole. It'd help you out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: FEtFY ()
Date: September 28, 2013 07:20PM

Maryland food stamp fraud alleged against Baltimore stores

Nearly $7 million taken from food assistance programs, authorities say

Second Obama Express is one of the stores listed in a federal indictment alleging food stamp fraud.

September 17, 2013|By Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun

A federal grand jury indicted 10 Baltimore business owners or operators on charges of stealing nearly $7 million from food assistance programs by agreeing to debit cash for beneficiaries without selling food — then keeping a cut of the proceeds.

The owner of a corner grocery in West Baltimore called "Second Obama Express" is accused of obtaining more than $2 million in payments for food sales that never occurred, a practice that authorities call "food stamp trafficking." Eight others are accused of taking between $348,000 and $1.4 million.

"Taxpayers fund the food stamp program to put food on the tables of needy recipients, not to put money in the pockets of greedy criminals," U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said. "Food producers and distributors benefit when food stamp funds are used to buy food, and honest storeowners work hard to earn a profit by actually selling food."

Incidents of food stamp fraud have risen over the past several years as federal assistance increased during rocky economic times. Congressional Republicans have cited such fraud cases as they push for significant cuts from nutrition programs in an agricultural bill now under consideration.

The largest of the programs is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP. What once consisted of actual "stamps" now involves debit cards that can be used to purchase approved food items like breads, cereals, fruits, vegetables, meats, fish and poultry.

The indictment alleges that the store operators instead allowed customers to convert the cards into cash, typically splitting the proceeds. To avoid detection, prosecutors say, the owners debited the funds from the cards in multiple transactions over a period of hours or days.

The amount of trafficked benefits has more than doubled in recent years, reflecting explosive growth in the program. SNAP benefits grew from $36 billion in 2008 to $73 billion in 2011, according to the Department of Agriculture. During the same period, stolen benefits rose from $330 million to $858 million, with the rate of fraud inching up from 1 percent to 1.3 percent.

"Twice as many food stamps benefits are out there, but we still have the same enforcement resources," Rosenstein said.

Small grocery or convenience stores account for 15 percent of all redemptions, but 85 percent of all trafficking, the Agriculture Department said last month in a report, and violations are more likely in higher-poverty neighborhoods.

Among those charged in this week's Maryland case was Abdullah Aljaradi, 51, who prosecutors say owns the Second Obama Express in the 900 block of Harlem Ave. and siphoned $2 million in benefits over a three-year period.

Despite a fluorescent "open" sign blinking in the window, its security gate was pulled down tight Tuesday as a handful of people stood around the corner. No one answered the phone for the store, and an attorney was not listed in court records.

Like the "Obama" store, others closed as a result of the charges were located in downtrodden neighborhoods surrounded by vacant buildings. Their windows and shelves appeared stocked with junk food and sodas. Supermarkets are rare in such "food deserts."

According to affidavits unsealed in the case, FBI agents observed the Obama store and watched dozens of customers leave after conducting SNAP transactions with either no items or a small item such as a soda, even as records showed that about half the transactions had been for more than $40.


The FBI had cooperating witnesses go into the stores, wearing "recording and monitoring devices," who asked if they could "sell stamps."

"I got stamps to sell," a cooperating witness told a store employee during a March visit. "I got two hundred."

"You want one hundred?" a store employee said, according to an affidavit, and kept the other hundred.

William G. Squires Jr., of the Department of Agriculture's Office of Inspector General, said the debit card transactions are tracked electronically, and officials look for unusual activity and purchases that appear out of step with other stores in similar areas.

"In addition to that, we have informants that give us information, and we get information from concerned citizens," he said.

Rob Santoni, chairman of the Maryland Food Dealers Council, said that the cases represent the "tip of the iceberg."

Santoni, whose family operates Santoni's supermarket in East Baltimore, said he has complained about fraud to the inspector general's office for years, "and this is the first time I have heard of anything ever being done about it."

Santoni said many smaller stores don't have systems that track what items are food-stamp eligible. He said store owners who commit fraud "deserve whatever is coming to them."

None of the food-stamp beneficiaries were charged in the federal case, and Rosenstein said that was because the store owners took the bulk of the proceeds and are supposed to be acting as an "agent of the USDA, making sure the recipients get food."

Dae Cho, 66, and Hyung Cho, 40, of Catonsville are charged with obtaining more $1.4 million in payments at the K&S Food Market in the 3900 block of W. Belvedere Ave. According to court records, authorities say Dae Cho was ordered to voluntarily leave the United States in 2008 and never left, and Hyung Cho "lacks legal status to be present in the United States."

No lawyer was listed in court records with the indictment.

Prosecutors say those charged face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each count of wire fraud, and others face additional charges of food stamp fraud.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:02PM

Snapper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wrong. USDA publishes a number of various
> estimates for different types of fraud within the
> program beyond 'processing error rates', e.g.
> trafficing:

Get real, dickhead. Posting on one's website is not producing. This particular analysis was obviously not produced by USDA, but by an outside private contractor -- ICF International. Not sure how you could have missed that since the fact is PLAINLY STATED on page 3 of the report. Maybe you just didn't see that somehow. Or perhaps you did see it but simply preferred to ignore it. Either one would of course be consistent with the M.O. of a mindless dime-store hack and also with that of total asswipes and dumbfucks.

> As well as rates for intentional program
> violations, i.e., intentional fraud, and regularly
> reports the same during oversight hearings and
> other periodic reporting:

Pathetic. That's a one-time opening-statement overview and backgrounder from 2010. It is not a report to Congress, and it is not a periodic anything. Try to color inside the lines for a change. Meanwhile, the statement does refer to the role played in documenting IPV's by just those SNAP quality control programs and federal and state fraud units that you have claimed not to exist. I'm sure you would have found all that talk rather baffling indeed if you had actually bothered to read the statement.

> "Blah blah blah blah right-wing blah blah..." lol

Yes, that's often the best argument that incompetent dullards and fuckwads can manage to come up with. I've seen it many times before and am not in the least bit surprised to see it again here. You might want to get a fucking clue at some point, however.

> Obviously they have some level of resources
> dedicated to fraud. That's not the issue.

It is exactly the issue once some perfidious pipsqueak starts going around claiming that there is no effort or desire to actively police SNAP programs. That's just plain fucking stupid. But what the heck, go ahead and contradict yourself some more. It doesn't make you look ignorant or inconsistent or anything else bad like that.

> FNS and the states both regularly cite lack of
> resources to do any more than they do without taking
> away from program delivery.

Do you know what a freaking tautology is, bonehead? How about authorizations and appropriations? Any clue there? Do you know what they are and how they work? And do you understand the affects of a CR on budgetary reprogramming? It certainly doesn't seem that you have any grasp of any of these matters at all. So few out-of-the-loop morons actually do, of course.

> Duh. Which has nothing to do with prioritization
> of program resources, incentive structures,
> relative resources devoted to trafficking or other
> fraud, etc.

Get a fucking grip, asswipe. Who do you think sets these funding levels and priorities anyway? Do you think Congress just hands USDA a big bag of money and tells them to spend it however they think best? Do you think the Great Fucking Bush Recession had any effect at all on benefit levels? Just how much worse off than fucking stupid are you anyway?

Fraud of all sorts is meanwhile at very low levels. Simple fact. This is in part because of the efforts, desire, and success of all those separate audit and control programs and personnel in whose existence you do not believe. Such a transparent fuckwad.

> ^ More off-point blah blah.

Ooooh, look! There it is again.

> Knock yourself out criticizing that example, there
> are plenty of others all of which tend to show
> underestimation in the official reported numbers,
> the largest portion of the discrepancy resulting
> from simple definition and the limited scope for
> what's counted in the numbers.

Oh dear! Watch a couple of meetings of the fucking Florida Medicaid and Public Assistance Fraud Strike Force and see if they don't remind you of some junior high school student council meeting. No wonder you anticipated ridicule. But it may be worth noting -- as you seemingly have not -- that actual Florida officials treat EBT fraud the same way they treat the sale of alcohol to minors. It's a merchant crime, and that's who law enforcement teams go after. They also pass on mega-thanks and praise to USDA Special Agents (the ones you claim not to exist) for passing them the info needed to pursue investigations and develop prosecutions and convictions. That information is of course often drawn from those digital records of EBT transactions that further seem to lack existence in your fictional little sub-moronic version of the world. Funny how all that imaginary stuff can start to add up, isn't it?

> http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27002-0011-13.pdf

Probably should have read that one as well, asswipe: "Given the size and complexity of SNAP, this low rate of data anomalies is a notable achievement and the States have made significant progress resolving the questioned recipients identified in our matches. However, since SNAP participation has reached record levels, we believe that even incremental improvements in fraud detection and prevention can have a meaningful impact on SNAP program integrity."

> No, merchant fraud is the larger portion of
> *reported* fraud because they almost entirely
> concentrate limited resources only on identified
> cases of it.

Grow up, you pointless little snot. Merchants are targeted because they are the big fish, the dons, the bosses, and the kingpins. Without them, trafficking -- by definition a merchant crime -- does not exist. Everyone makes this point. Only a total fucking dumbshit could possibly miss it.

> Retailer fraud is the primary responsibility of FNS
> versus individual fraud detection and enforcement which
> for the most part falls to the states (beyond limited
> audits of the state programs).

Let's review for the benefit of the hopelessly ignorant and obdurate. Within federal guidelines, states develop their own criteria for individual SNAP eligibility. It is the feds on the other hand who authorize and manage merchant participation. State and federal agents are then JOINTLY responsible for admin and enforcement across ALL aspects of the program. Congress funds all of the federal effort and matches at various levels against funding authorized at the state end. Which is one reason why the level of state effort is important in looking at program enforcement and fraud rates. But I'm sure all this will fly right over your worthless little head. You after all have exactly no actual interest in the facts of anything, being instead committed to the feeble fibs, lies, distortions, and far less than half-truths of partisan stupidity. That's what makes you a total asswipe and dumbfuck. Congratulations on your oblivious trained-seal ignorance, jerkwad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: You Go Guys! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:16PM

I have no idea who is right here, but I'm sure enjoying the show!

LOL...the perfect combination of intelligence, wit, and unbridled enthusiasm for ripping apart an opponent. Gotta love it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:17PM

empty calories Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kids are obese because the cheapest (and most
> convenient) food available is refined starch and
> sugar.

What do you think the role of prenatal and perinatal exposure to endocrine disruptors such as the estrogen mimicker Bisphenol-A might be?



It is cheap because it comes from grains
> that are mass produced and are easily stored and
> transported. This type of food gives a lot of
> calories, but does not give a lot of nutrition.
> The human body is "starved" on this food and wants
> more even though it will only get more of the
> same. This causes obesity.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: LOL! ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:31PM

FEtFY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maryland food stamp fraud alleged against
> Baltimore stores

Do you know what an "argument from the outliers" is? It's when 98% of something goes one way and 2% goes another way, and people try to cite one example after another deliberately taken from the 2% in an attempt to make really stupid people believe that 2% is actually larger than 98%. This sort of absolute rubbish goes on all the time on the right-wing. This is because the right wing is built principally from stupid people. Smart people aren't dumb enough to buy such horseshit. You on the other hand are either stupid enough to have bought it, or are enough of a dishonest asswipe to be trying to sell it. Either way, you are a colossal loser.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Good Luck with That ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:31PM

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you think the role of prenatal and
> perinatal exposure to endocrine disruptors such as
> the estrogen mimicker Bisphenol-A might be?

These are the words the average FFXU poster understood:

"What do you think the role of and to such as the might be?"

Although the topic is fascinating, it might help to give some context so the few posters here who are capable of intelligent thought can appreciate the issue. And if you have any special insights on this topic, that would be useful too.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Case close ()
Date: September 28, 2013 08:36PM

Free loading niggers. End of topic.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Ode to an Asswipe ()
Date: September 28, 2013 10:29PM

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snapper Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Wrong. USDA publishes a number of various
> > estimates for different types of fraud within
> the
> > program beyond 'processing error rates', e.g.
> > trafficing:
>
> Get real, dickhead. Posting on one's website is
> not producing. This particular analysis was
> obviously not produced by USDA, but by an outside
> private contractor -- ICF International. Not sure
> how you could have missed that since the fact is
> PLAINLY STATED on page 3 of the report. Maybe you
> just didn't see that somehow. Or perhaps you did
> see it but simply preferred to ignore it. Either
> one would of course be consistent with the M.O. of
> a mindless dime-store hack and also with that of
> total asswipes and dumbfucks.


Uh, dumbass, it's the sixth in the series of the same report on trafficking which USDA produces every two years. Because they contract out for assistance with the analysis doesn't make it not theirs. It's prepared under FNS' direction, with their direct participation, using their data, and with access to their investigative staff and data. They also produce numerous other reports in exactly the same way. Trying to claim that it's not theirs because it was done by a contractor working for them is something only an asswipe like you would try.

>
> > As well as rates for intentional program
> > violations, i.e., intentional fraud, and
> regularly
> > reports the same during oversight hearings and
> > other periodic reporting:
>
> Pathetic. That's a one-time opening-statement
> overview and backgrounder from 2010. It is not a
> report to Congress, and it is not a periodic
> anything. Try to color inside the lines for a
> change. Meanwhile, the statement does refer to
> the role played in documenting IPV's by just those
> SNAP quality control programs and federal and
> state fraud units that you have claimed not to
> exist. I'm sure you would have found all that
> talk rather baffling indeed if you had actually
> bothered to read the statement.


Uh, yeah, just as I said it's the testimony of the Administrator for FNS in front of the appropriations committee for the program. lmao

Testimony of Julie Paradis, Administrator
Food and Nutrition Service
Before the House Committee on Agriculture
Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight,
Nutrition and Forestry

Which they do on a regular basis. Would you like the 2011 report instead also discussing trafficking levels?

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/speeches/CT072111.pdf

Or maybe the testimony at a 2012 fraud oversight hearings?

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/speeches/CT031412.PDF

Or maybe in the context of budget hearings done every year where they review status and plans for fraud-related program efforts?

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/speeches/CT022812-a.pdf

Asswipe. lol


> > Obviously they have some level of resources
> > dedicated to fraud. That's not the issue.
>
> It is exactly the issue once some perfidious
> pipsqueak starts going around claiming that there
> is no effort or desire to actively police SNAP
> programs. That's just plain fucking stupid. But
> what the heck, go ahead and contradict yourself
> some more. It doesn't make you look ignorant or
> inconsistent or anything else bad like that.


Uh, no, it doesn't if you actually read what was said versus what you'd like to have been said. Sorry asswipe.


>
> > FNS and the states both regularly cite lack of
> > resources to do any more than they do without
> taking
> > away from program delivery.
>
> Do you know what a freaking tautology is,
> bonehead? How about authorizations and
> appropriations? Any clue there? Do you know what
> they are and how they work? And do you understand
> the affects of a CR on budgetary reprogramming?
> It certainly doesn't seem that you have any grasp
> of any of these matters at all. So few
> out-of-the-loop morons actually do, of course.


There are lots of reasons why. None of the why of which affects that it exists as it exists asswipe.

I thought that you were arguing that they did a great job. Now you appear to be arguing that they don't have the budget to do it. lol


>
> > Duh. Which has nothing to do with
> prioritization
> > of program resources, incentive structures,
> > relative resources devoted to trafficking or
> other
> > fraud, etc.
>
> Get a fucking grip, asswipe. Who do you think
> sets these funding levels and priorities anyway?
> Do you think Congress just hands USDA a big bag of
> money and tells them to spend it however they
> think best? Do you think the Great Fucking Bush
> Recession had any effect at all on benefit levels?
> Just how much worse off than fucking stupid are
> you anyway?
>


Ah, the obligatory blah blah Bush rant. How novel. You might try throwing some Koch Brothers and Halliburton references in for flavor. Asswipe. lol

>
> > Knock yourself out criticizing that example,
> there
> > are plenty of others all of which tend to show
> > underestimation in the official reported
> numbers,
> > the largest portion of the discrepancy
> resulting
> > from simple definition and the limited scope
> for
> > what's counted in the numbers.
>
> Oh dear! Watch a couple of meetings of the
> fucking Florida Medicaid and Public Assistance
> Fraud Strike Force and see if they don't remind
> you of some junior high school student council
> meeting. No wonder you anticipated ridicule. But
> it may be worth noting -- as you seemingly have
> not -- that actual Florida officials treat EBT
> fraud the same way they treat the sale of alcohol
> to minors. It's a merchant crime, and that's who
> law enforcement teams go after. They also pass on
> mega-thanks and praise to USDA Special Agents (the
> ones you claim not to exist) for passing them the
> info needed to pursue investigations and develop
> prosecutions and convictions. That information is
> of course often drawn from those digital records
> of EBT transactions that further seem to lack
> existence in your fictional little sub-moronic
> version of the world. Funny how all that
> imaginary stuff can start to add up, isn't it?


None of your blustering bullshit affects the fact that the "official" levels of fraud reported by the program for payment error rates, as typically cited as a basis by those saying there is trivial fraud in the program, consistently and significantly underestimates the levels of more broadly defined fraud found in virtually every outside review (and even their own) and requires expansion as, for example, noted in various GAO reviews of the same.


>
> >
> http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27002-0011-13.pdf
>
> Probably should have read that one as well,
> asswipe: "Given the size and complexity of SNAP,
> this low rate of data anomalies is a notable
> achievement and the States have made significant
> progress resolving the questioned recipients
> identified in our matches. However, since SNAP
> participation has reached record levels, we
> believe that even incremental improvements in
> fraud detection and prevention can have a
> meaningful impact on SNAP program integrity."


And I guess you missed the entire rest of the report citing all of the various deficiencies in their methods and approach which led to why there were questioned recipients from their audit sampling to begin with. Asswipe.


>
> > No, merchant fraud is the larger portion of
> > *reported* fraud because they almost entirely
> > concentrate limited resources only on
> identified
> > cases of it.
>
> Grow up, you pointless little snot. Merchants are
> targeted because they are the big fish, the dons,
> the bosses, and the kingpins. Without them,
> trafficking -- by definition a merchant crime --
> does not exist. Everyone makes this point. Only
> a total fucking dumbshit could possibly miss it.
>
>

You missed the point asswipe. It's not that they simply concentrate on merchants. As criticized in their own IG's report, their estimates for fraud rely only on the results of cases that they've investigated, not a wider random sampling. That tends to yield a higher percentage of "positives" for participating merchants involved in fraudulent transactions (~8% - 10%), but likely underestimates the total numbers and dollars on an absolute basis.


> > Retailer fraud is the primary responsibility of
> FNS
> > versus individual fraud detection and
> enforcement which
> > for the most part falls to the states (beyond
> limited
> > audits of the state programs).
>
> Let's review for the benefit of the hopelessly
> ignorant and obdurate. Within federal guidelines,
> states develop their own criteria for individual
> SNAP eligibility. It is the feds on the other
> hand who authorize and manage merchant
> participation. State and federal agents are then
> JOINTLY responsible for admin and enforcement
> across ALL aspects of the program. Congress funds
> all of the federal effort and matches at various
> levels against funding authorized at the state
> end. Which is one reason why the level of state
> effort is important in looking at program
> enforcement and fraud rates. But I'm sure all
> this will fly right over your worthless little
> head. You after all have exactly no actual
> interest in the facts of anything, being instead
> committed to the feeble fibs, lies, distortions,
> and far less than half-truths of partisan
> stupidity. That's what makes you a total asswipe
> and dumbfuck. Congratulations on your oblivious
> trained-seal ignorance, jerkwad.


The practical result of which, as I said, is that FNS's near entire focus is on merchants (as you accept above), limited audits of state programs, and referring a few cases of individual fraud which happen to become known here and there, with the States having primary responsibility for enforcing cases of fraud at an individual level through state-led pursuits and prosecution.

Asswipe.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Comstock for Congress ()
Date: September 28, 2013 10:51PM

Wolf represents the most Republican district in NoVA which is also the wealthiest district in the country.

Why did he vote no?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How They Voted: Food Stamp Reform
Posted by: Asswipesayswhat? ()
Date: September 28, 2013 11:40PM

LOL! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FEtFY Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Maryland food stamp fraud alleged against
> > Baltimore stores
>
> Do you know what an "argument from the outliers"
> is? It's when 98% of something goes one way and
> 2% goes another way, and people try to cite one
> example after another deliberately taken from the
> 2% in an attempt to make really stupid people
> believe that 2% is actually larger than 98%. This
> sort of absolute rubbish goes on all the time on
> the right-wing. This is because the right wing is
> built principally from stupid people. Smart
> people aren't dumb enough to buy such horseshit.
> You on the other hand are either stupid enough to
> have bought it, or are enough of a dishonest
> asswipe to be trying to sell it. Either way, you
> are a colossal loser.


Do you know what "arguing on the basis of percentages to obscure the magnitude of absolute numbers" is? Of course you do because that's what you just did asswipe. lol

Nobody is saying that fraud represents 98% of the program. Unfortunately, the 2% that you attempt to blow off on the basis of it being "just 2%" represents, as here, millions of dollars per case and billions in the aggregate just for identified trafficking not counting any other fraud and waste.

You know what else is only small percentage? The 0.2% administrative overhead costs to run all of the FNS assistance programs. They're probably losing about as much or more to trafficking than it costs to run the entire program.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
  ******   **    **  **     **  ********   **     ** 
 **    **  **   **   ***   ***  **     **  **     ** 
 **        **  **    **** ****  **     **  **     ** 
 **        *****     ** *** **  ********   ********* 
 **        **  **    **     **  **         **     ** 
 **    **  **   **   **     **  **         **     ** 
  ******   **    **  **     **  **         **     ** 
This forum powered by Phorum.