Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by Gatorstooth, Sep 20, 2013.
So you believe that they were able to identify all the fraud in the system and it came out to 1%?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to trim $4.5 billion - that's billion, with a "b" - from SNAP. So even under the Senate version, helpless children are going to starve in the streets.
I would like to see a list of all the Senators who voted to allow poor children to starve. If we're going to identify the Congressional fans of baby starving, let's shine the bright light of condemnation on ALL of the despicable bastids.
Seriously? Being a sinner doesn't excuse a person to increase the poor's suffering.
Jesus said that the poor would always be with us (Matthew 26:11; Mark 14:7). He also said that those who show mercy to the poor, the sick and the needy are in effect ministering to Him personally (Matthew 25:35-40) and will be rewarded accordingly.
Proverbs 14:31 (ESV)
31 Whoever oppresses a poor man insults his Maker, but he who is generous to the needy honors him.
“If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children let us not love with words or tongue but with action and in truth” (1 John 3:17-18).
"But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind." Luke 14:13
Quality Swift reference. Well played. Very well played.
That's what the auditors found.
Who would you like to conduct the audit so that you would believe it?
Yes, it was, and I neglected to compliment wgb earlier so I'll do it now.
I wouldn't believe any person that said they conducted an audit and were able to identify every instance of fraud. I don't think you actually believe it either because you aren't that naive. An accurate statement might be that the fraud that they did uncover amounted to 1% but that they have no idea how much they weren't able to uncover.
Overly dramatic thread title, but I guess a true thread title like "Senate reduces SNAP budget by 5% over the next 10 years" isn't sensational enough.
No one is going to starve, but I have a feeling our liberal forum members already knew that.
Then in your "logic" no audit of anything...corporate or public...would be a legitimate audit.
Auditors use accounting rules to audit organizations and them certify them as true and representative.
Even if one was to play your game, what's the true fraud rate?
That's still the overwhelming majority of the funding ISN'T fraudulent.
You might think the silliness of your argument is defendable....
But in reality its not.
Not event the conservatives who are actually arguing this in congress have taken up the fraud argument (Cantor dropped it). They're simply arguing the spending issue, and no one is willing to make the claim that this cut is material.
Cut SNAP to zero....you still have a debt issue.
Tell that to the million plus starving already....or those keep out of starving by SNAP.
Do you really believe no one in this country goes undernourished?
Oh please stop with the silly histrionics!
The Republicans votes for a $4 Billion per year reduction in an $80 Billion a year program. That's a 5% reduction in SNAP.
What levels will that put us back to? It would put 2014 expenditures back to somewhere between 2012 and 2013 levels, which are still an absolutely amazing $42 Billion more than we spent during GWB last full year in office.
Even more amazing is this: Under the proposed "cuts" we would spent $76 Billion per year in SNAP. In Clinton's final year in office (2000), we were only spending $15B per year in SNAP.
In other words, after the proposed cuts, we would still be spending more than 500% more than we spent under Clinton.
Of course. Once a group is over, oh I don't know, maybe 10, then the likelihood of exactness is diminished greatly. Just like the "estimates" on these boards of how many SNAP recipients take the primo parking spots at stores in their BMW's and load up three carts with beer and cigarettes and cram them in between still-boxed flat screens is likely not accurate. (Well, probably not "just like." A certain poster whose name must not be spoken can't be at all stores at all times to accurately monitor this for us. Sometimes he's busy interrogating people on the street protesting this or that.)
Interestingly, Henry Olsen in National Review points out that all of the arguments for cutting SNAP also apply to the Federal Crop Insurance program, which no one is proposing be touched:
Yes, we have a HUGE undernourishment problem in the U.S.:
Yeah, they are really being cruel, asking every able bodied person between 18 and 59 that are capable of working to hunt a job or join a work program to find a job, in order to get food stamps.
You mean like having gas stations take food stamps now?
Don't forget all the old people living on dog food.
How many people would be kicked out of the program?
I see you've been we'll trained in speaking euphemistically. However, a lot more people than you think can see right through it.
Dont start killing them with facts. They'll just put their fingers in their ears and start humming to themselves.
I think it is sad that so many make it their daily calling to gripe about what other people have.