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.