Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's be honest with ourselves now, we're talking about a 10 week investigation in one city. It's not only 20 people out of 35 million, it's only 20 people who got caught in only 10 weeks in only 1 city. So lets not ignore the obvious here, mmkay?
Okay, provide more data for the year for the country. The comparison is in percentage rates, which are excluding sample sizes. Hard facts are counted, not vague stories. More people getting caught for it, the higher the rate of abuse is (especially over time)...it's stats 101. Saying that some people do it, and more might is irrelevant to start screaming about...unless you are nuts of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeezy is BACK
With that, this discussion isn't about blaming anybody for anything and maybe you should find one of those threads for your tangent. The topic at hand is whether or not tax payers have the right to be angry when they witness a person abusing the system.
As they should be, the original post I wrote I referred to the scammers as scum...otherwise the program would have bleeped out the rest. The other point was (and linked) the sheer number of stories with nearly identical content, that has been lifted and repeated since Reagan's Welfare Queens rants ad nauseum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeezy is BACK
If you think it's ok to steal money from the federal government and Americans... wait, nevermind. So far to left, of course you think it's ok.
Really? You know my exact political stance of every issue? Especially when you assume all of my opinions are this far extreme vague left you say, plus the wonderful ad hominem slight. A popular position of many extremists is to cast anyone who disagrees with them as an even father extreme in everything, along with insults and casts of shadowy criminal intent.
"The enemy is clearly delineated: he is a perfect model of malice, a kind of amoral superman—sinister, ubiquitous, powerful, cruel, sensual, luxury-loving. Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his past, his desires, his limitations."
Simply by me saying that fewer then are ranted about are gaming the system...especially extrapolating from single anecdotal stories.
I understand that. My point is even if the city had only 2,000 people in it, that's only 1%. And it's likely a place with more than 20,000 people. In other words, it's far from rampant.
I understand that. My point is even if the city had only 2,000 people in it, that's only 1%. And it's likely a place with more than 20,000 people. In other words, it's far from rampant.
Let's see...3.5 million divided by the 15 stores involved = appx. $233,333 per store in one year.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,462,476 times
Reputation: 6670
Let's put this in perspective....
$40 billion.... total annual cost of the food stamp program, aka Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
$40 billion..... total annual spending on Foreign Aid
$14 billion..... in annual direct farm subsidy payments
$17 billion..... total annual petroleum subsidies
$1.2 billion.... annual cost of Superfund to clean up toxic industrial sites
$14 billion..... for annual coal subsidies
$75 billion..... in annual tax subsidies to other businesses
$680 billion... most recent annual defense spending bill, of which
$50 billion..... is for the Pentagon to build its Gerald R. Ford class of aircraft carriers (a "legacy" technology), and another
$50 billion..... for the ten destroyers, frigates and cruisers needed to support them.
etc., etc.
And let's not even start re: the hundreds of billions in "TARP" bailout money! So I say let the folks on food stamps eat lobster if they want, 'cuz it's pretty obvious that's what everybody else who's eating on the taxpayer's dime, is having too...
I work a few hours a week as a cashier in a large grocery store so I do have some knowledge on this subject. I have many customers that recieve food stamps/EBT and many people compain if they see a customer that is buying say lobster on EBT. My thought is they have every right to spend their food stamps on what they want. They only get certain amount of money so if they wish to spend it on expensive things that is their choice. I feel like some people are trying to say that a person that recieves EBT money has no right to dine on expensive food and that isn't really our right. Am I missing something?????
Yes you are missing something. Those who work for a living can't afford lobster because the government is robbing them blind while those who don't work are living like kings.
Food stamps are another reason for the obesity rates we see in this country. People are living it up on high priced steaks and lobster and of course the butter to dip their food stamp lobster into. Then they down twinkie bars and bon-bons or the most expensive cakes and ice creams for dessert. Food stamps are a big reason Medicaid costs are so outrageous. Years of high living and big eating on food stamps leads to all the obesity related diseases and hospital stays.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
