Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Chairshot

Members
  • Content Count

    1,015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Chairshot

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 09/07/1977

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    SonicConfuser
  • Website URL
    http://headingforhome.wordpress.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    NC

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    New York Giants
  1. Did your investigation lead you to believe that this type of fraud is rampant?Yes. People selling their cards for cash on eBay or Craiglist all the time. They just ask the government to give them replacement cards.This definitely isn't BS. Minnesota has just begun a crackdown on people who repeatedly "lose" their card or have it "stolen".As already noted earlier in this thread, fraud amounts to about 1% of the program. The average person is getting like $130 in benefits a month. We aren't exactly talking Madoff level scams here.I agree that fraud should be curtailed as much as possible. But the current fraud levels are miniscule compared to the number of people actually being assisted.Where exactly does that 1% come from, sounds pretty darn low.From the SNAP website. www.fns.usda.gov/snap/government/integrity.htmIt sounds low because it is low. The level of fraud is low because the best you can scam the program for is a couple hundred a month, in most cases. Alot of the people enrolled in SNAP are getting less than $100 a month in benefits. Most fraud ends up being people selling benefits/cards, as mentioned, and they usually are only selling a few dollars worth. So, while that's wrong and needs to be addressed, it's not exactly a windfall type scam.There are exceptions and I'm sure there are a few people who are scamming for more, but overall its not a real big problem, at least I haven't seen an real evidence of widespread abuse. I'm sure Uncle Sam is getting taken for far more from people cheating on their taxes, for example, than they are with SNAP.
  2. Did your investigation lead you to believe that this type of fraud is rampant?Yes. People selling their cards for cash on eBay or Craiglist all the time. They just ask the government to give them replacement cards.This definitely isn't BS. Minnesota has just begun a crackdown on people who repeatedly "lose" their card or have it "stolen".As already noted earlier in this thread, fraud amounts to about 1% of the program. The average person is getting like $130 in benefits a month. We aren't exactly talking Madoff level scams here.I agree that fraud should be curtailed as much as possible. But the current fraud levels are miniscule compared to the number of people actually being assisted.
  3. Sorry, but I'm calling BS on this.Nope. She buys gourmet food with her card all the time. The stores will ring up eligible food items instead of what she actually buys.This doesn't make sense. Gourmet food would be just as eligible as any other type of food. The store would have no reason to ring up other items in place of "gourmet" items.
  4. Did your investigation lead you to believe that this type of fraud is rampant?Yes. People selling their cards for cash on eBay or Craiglist all the time. They just ask the government to give them replacement cards.You believe that there are a large number of people in $2 million homes abusing SNAP benefits?If so, what do you think should be done about it?
  5. Did your investigation lead you to believe that this type of fraud is rampant?
  6. You said this before and it simply isn't true. If it had no effect, there would be zero restrictions at all. I asked you before why have any restrictions if you only get what you get. You didn't answer. I suspect because you know the answer to that question is the same as to why you shouldn't spend 41 dollars on a cake. If the money were just spent on alcohol or cigarettes or cosmetics then the burden of hunger falls elsewhere. That is not what the program was designed for. It is to make sure people don't go hungry. I didn't answer it before because it isn't the great point you seem to think it is. There are very few "restrictions" on this program, unless you consider the fact that they have to use the money on food. They can't use the money on alcohol, cigarettes or cosmetics for the same reason they can't use it on sofas, guns or monster trucks: those things aren't food.I guess you could make an argument that alcohol is food, but it's not exactly sitting on the food pyramid anywhere. Someone who has EBT benefits can basically use it for most food items or seeds to grow food items. Pretty much the only real restriction is that it can't be used on hot food items, so no Mickey D's. It's very broad. Let's be honest here. Almost no one, including you I'm guessing, care that she bought an ice cream cake, so restrictions aren't the problem. The problem people have is that she spent too much on an ice cream cake, in their opinion. Which is a very slippery slope, I think. Should they be allowed to get Chef-Boy-R-Dee ravioli or do they have to buy generic, since it's cheaper? Maybe they should only spend on sale items. Stew meat is OK but a T-bone is not. You start getting into all kinds of mess if you go down that road. I asked you a question, too, which you failed to answer (tho, I won't assume to know why you didn't answer, as you did with me). So I'll ask again: How much is she allowed to spend on ice cream cake?
  7. You are right, they do have a right. I'd argue that there are far, far, greater things to worry about than $41 cakes.Also, I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think there are ways to further track, restrict, contain or maintain the food assistance program and some how get more efficient and spend fewer taxpayer dollars.
  8. Whether she spends $41 on cake or $4 on a cake, it impacts the taxpayer in no way. She gets what she gets. If she got extra money for cake buying, taxpayers would have a stake in her buying choices and I could understand people being upset about that.Unless someone is suggesting that this woman should be getting less money (which I highly doubt any sane person would suggest, if we were to see the total amount of food assistance she is receiving each month) then no one is really arguing about efficiencies here. Trust me, even at max benefits, she isn't getting that much. And she probably isn't getting max benefits. Generally I agree, as long as a $41 cake doesn't signal inefficiency in the assistance amounts...which I think is what the discussion should be about.Also, I'd argue that taxpayers would want to see the money used wisely, maybe everyone would be abe to hug it out if the grandma was buying Johnny Blueberries instead. If you haven't already, research what a person gets for assistance. It isn't much. I'd imagine 95% of the US spends more on food in any given month than people on assistance get.As far as her spending it wisely, that's such a slippery slope I wouldn't want to touch it.
  9. Whether she spends $41 on cake or $4 on a cake, it impacts the taxpayer in no way. She gets what she gets. If she got extra money for cake buying, taxpayers would have a stake in her buying choices and I could understand people being upset about that.Unless someone is suggesting that this woman should be getting less money (which I highly doubt any sane person would suggest, if we were to see the total amount of food assistance she is receiving each month) then no one is really arguing about efficiencies here. Trust me, even at max benefits, she isn't getting that much. And she probably isn't getting max benefits.
  10. So why have restrictions at all? Why shouldnt they be able to buy liquor then? If they get what they get no matter what, why does it matter what they buy?How much should she be allowed to spend on ice cream cake?
  11. E - Dangerous dog law that covers all dogs and all dog owners and holds said owners responsible for the actions of their dog, regardless of breed.
  12. The point that most of you are missing is that it doesn't matter how much the cake is. It's not like the lady gets an extra $41 if she decides to get an ice cream cake. Her benefits are what they are. How she spends that benefit is left to her. We can't go around checking recipients receipts after they leave the store. How much cake is allowed? What if she spent $40 on 15 cakes, would that be OK? Regardless of the cost of the cake, her benefits stay the same. If she buys one cake or 20 boxes of crackers with the money she still gets the same amount. It costs the taxpayer nothing more than it already did. You could probably get mad at her for spending so much of her benefit on the cake, I guess, but you have no idea what her situation is. Maybe she's a fantastic shopper and had the money left. Maybe she cut corners that month just so she could get her kid a cake. Maybe she's and idiot that places no value on her benefits. No matter what she does, it doesn't cost anyone a dime extra than it already would, so I don't see what the big deal is.
  13. No worries. I'm very clear about how people feel about my dogs, trust me. Good or bad, people are often generous with sharing their opinions. I've had all kinds of reactions. But I have to tell you, just my own experience, I get more compliments then I do complaints or nasty looks. And I've had more than one occasion where I was able to introduce my dogs to people who were apprehensive and have them walking away pleasantly surprised.I understand that some people are afraid. That's a shame, but I don't completely blame them, given what they see media wise. If they give me the opportunity, I show them the other side with my dogs. If not, I go on my merry way and I try not to inconvenience anyone else in the process.Like I said, my goal isn't to convince people that pits are the greatest dogs in the world, even though I personally believe that. My point is that I would like all municipalities to have strong dangerous dog laws. Not leash laws, not some basic licensing laws (even though those are fine), but strong dangerous dog laws that protect everyone from all dangerous dogs, regardless of breed. It's the only thing that makes sense to me.
  14. We've been over this stuff earlier, but I'll go one more time.There are a number of reasons I own the breed. They are the most loyal dog I've ever seen. Smart, athletic and a ton of fun to play with. They are absolute clowns and lap dogs. I love having them around. I've never once used my dogs to try to intimidate or inspire fear. Everywhere I bring them, I introduce them to people who are interested in meeting them.I've been around pits all my life. My wife is a vet nurse and given the fact that pits are over running shelters, it's not uncommon for people in that field to be sensitive to how many are being laid down. Both mine are rescues. I wanted a dog, had great experiences with pits historically and think it's senseless that they are being rounded up and put down. So, I went to the shelter and rescued one. Later, I rescued another. They are curled up on the couch with me right now and I couldn't be happier to have them.I don't argue that many people get this breed to look tough. It's unfortunate. They make the rest of us look bad. If you don't get it, that's fine. I'm not asking you to get one. I'm just asking you to leave me to have mine. I'll hold up my end of the bargain.Fair enough. Let's say for the sake of argument we charged people with criminal behavior if their dog killed someone. What do you think that would do to the ownership of pits?Eventually, I think you would have far fewer people getting them for the wrong reasons and more getting them for the right reasons.My hope is that we would eventually have a population that was well cared for. Right now, and this gets back to the numbers argument, there is a glut of pits, at least in my estimation. There are a ton of them. Every wanna be thug is a backyard breeder. The shelters are over run with them. I feel the majority are neglected or outright abused. The disgusting practice of dog fighting is still prevalent in many places. I firmly believe that there is not a more neglected and mistreated breed out there than pits.I'm much rather see a smaller population of well cared for and loved dogs than what we have now.
  15. Good lord, you guys are relentless. I guess I'm asking for it by replying, tho.Yes, sometimes I let the dog on the one couch where I crash when I'm watching TV. They have their own beds and they have to be invited onto the couch. They are trained just fine.