StrangeSox

It's ISAT testing week for many schools. Easier to play is safe and not have to worry about late buses or a bunch of missing kids than to risk the snow not being as bad as predicted.

QUOTE (Brian @ Mar 5, 2013 -> 06:00 AM) Judging by updated snow projections, I'm only suppose to get about 3 inches! Nice! Have fun, city! And most of the schools up here announced closings last night. Have fun making that day up in June. Yeah, my wife's school did that last night. I wake up now and it hasn't even started snowing? WTF?

has ck ever not predicted doom, DOOM! in the near-future?

Wealth Inequality in America, perspectives and realities http://mashable.com/2013/03/02/wealth-inequality/

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 04:48 PM) You're basing your gun restrictions on some unproven assumption that the restrictions will making a meaningful dent in gun violence. You have no evidence either way, yet you still want to enact those measures. How can you turn around and claim that because we/I don't know the specific fraud % it might be a big waste of money and therefore not worth it? Because again, gun control isn't a cost-saving measure while fraud-prevention is. If you don't have any idea what the fraud rate is and how expensive your proposed programs would be, how can you say you support them or that they're good ideas? Reasonable measurements and estimates can be made of these things while the effects of gun control are more second-order effects. side note: it's easier to get a gun in most states than it is to get welfare A policy that has a negative effect on you is not by definition a punishment, but I'd say that for the comparison you're trying to draw, intention and goals are important.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 04:42 PM) Again, why not talk about the other measures noted in this thread and not the extreme version. Upping enforcement and making purchases of unacceptable goods (and punishments for doing same) would increase the efficiency of the entire system. Tracking purchases with random audits might force other people to be accountable for what they purchase. Junkfood and soda currently aren't unacceptable purchases. If you want to make them unacceptable, have fun fighting the Agri-corn lobby. Food aid purchases are already tracked. Medicaid purchases are tracked. What further purchases are you trying to track here? The only thing you're left with is the small amount of money distributed in cash aid. How are you going to track this and determine whether an expenditure is valid or not? What will this cost and what's the total estimated scope of the spending you're worried about here? How many resources are we going to waste persecuting the poor because some don't spend aid money how you'd prefer them to? Not exactly a particularly efficient form of stimulus, nor would it be stimulus if it's meant to be a permanent program. It's only in conservatives' minds that liberals and progressives don't actually care about efficacy and efficiency of programs.

Liberal bloggers took some Malaysian dictatorial money, too! http://wonkette.com/504162/everyone-is-mak...are-sad-and-mad

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 03:46 PM) Exactly. Exactly what? Gun control looks to limit gun violence. While cost and burdens need to be examined, they are not the same thing that the end goal is trying to achieve. With efforts to control fraud and waste, however, it's exactly the same thing. Does it make sense to spend $10 to eliminate $1 of fraud? I think you're falling victim to seeing the desire for gun controls as a desire for "punishment" for something or somebody I don't like. If you instead look at both on the axis of "minimizing human suffering," even if you don't agree with the values I'd place or the end goals I'd like to reach, you'd see why the comparison doesn't really make much sense.

The concept of the "working poor" continues to allude many

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:58 PM) No, you are wrong. SNAP limits a few things that you can't buy, but it doesn't say you can't buy junkfood, candy or soda. I think he was hinting that you should only be able to buy meat, potatoes, veggies, bread, etc with the card. Have an approved list of items that can be bought with it, and that is it. Junkfood, candy and soda are edible foods. If you don't believe they should be covered, lobby your representative for a change in the program's definitions. No need for a giant bureaucracy to make every individual's purchases open to public review and challenge. http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm Note:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) So, SOME fraud is OK with you, because you can't stop all fraud, Pragmatically? Of course. You could turn TANF into a $10T/year operation and station an armed enforcement officer at every register in every store in the country and you'd still have some fraud. The need is already justified. Duke's proposal is simply to allow him to shame those in need for being in need. no I believe we have very loose and difficult-to-actually-enforce gun laws that results in easy access to firearms for anyone who wants them, "good" guys and "bad" guys alike. I think tighter restrictions will cut down on the loss of life in this country and that these are worth the extra expense. I'm not trying to cut down on some "gun fraud" that results in government waste, so the cost-benefit math changes there.

Finish the job of the top 1% capturing 121% of all income gains since 2008? That diabolical, rich-hating bastard! Or is having all the money not enough, they need to be praised and worshiped too?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:40 PM) Sounds like Obama's plans for dealing with the problem of the rich. Those poor, put-upon rich people. How's the stock market doing today under Arch-Marxist Comrade Chairman Barack?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:39 PM) One wonderful bit of fun...it costs money to do any sort of security...so if all you care about is achieving a 10% across the board spending cut from the spending line...and you do so in the completely foolish way...you have to cut the amount you spend on that security by 10% as well. It's just like cutting funds from the IRS enforcement. The end result winds up being more fraud, but we have to cut the total amount of spending, because spending is always bad! All IRS furloughs are delayed until after April 15th!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:28 PM) I'm not sure why you keep arguing as if i'm agreeing with every idea Duke proposed. I've told you what I think, so let's stick with what i'm proposing. Mostly because Duke's proposal is repugnant and I'd like to see you explicitly repudiate it. You'll never have zero fraud, zero loss, zero overhead. At some point, you hit diminishing returns in a quest to cut the costs. For example, look at the mandatory drug-testing: because it's based on prejudicial assumptions that those on assistance use illegal substances at substantially higher rates than those not on assistance, it ends up costing the state more money than they save from kicking the handful of people that test positive off of the rolls. The sorts of ideas that Duke proposed? Full public disclosure of every expense? Judicial review and micro-management of every aspect of their lives? That would be incredibly expensive, far more expensive than whatever fraud/abuse you'd cut down. So even from a simply pragmatic standpoint, you'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis. Increased social stigmatization, increased costs, increased case loads, increased bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, false-positives that keep aid from needy people.

Now this is a story all about how my life got flipped, turned upside down

focus on Chicago sports

The big ISP's agreed to do that as part of the "Six Strikes" plan but there's no government involvement yet.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) True, but the difference is that with food stamps the business is getting reimbursed from the state for the sales. So the businesses can be just as fraudulent about those purchases (see my links earlier) and still get paid. It's a dumb way to do it if we have the technology to make it more automated. Businesses can make more money selling booze and cigarettes to minors, too.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) Second Q: Is there anything that actually compels a grocery store to accept WIC funds? Fiduciary duty?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:08 PM) I already have that right now - Balta cited the link for filing a complaint. You can review every single line-item expenditure of every single government aid recipient and lodge a legal complaint? Should that apply to you and the subsidies you receive as well? Or maybe Duke's idea wasn't really all that good? I'll ask again: what's the current fraud rate? What's the magnitude of the problem you're trying to solve here? What will these stricter enforcement mechanisms cost? Aside from direct cash assistance, it already works like that. Again, what problem are you trying to solve here and what are the potential costs and downsides of a proposed solution? Once we're past the welfare queen myth and on to the lived reality of impoverished Americans, what are you trying to do?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:03 PM) Sure, but that situation need not involve the state unless a business wants to press charges. With food stamps you're requiring the business to become an agent of the state. They become the enforcers of the law. That already happens with alcohol, tobacco and any other restricted item (drugs, guns, bunch of other stuff)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:37 PM) I mean look, at the end of the day technology is poorly used. We're relying on 16 year old cashiers to make sure that people don't abuse the system. I had to do that and it sucked. Stores shouldn't be responsible for customers. The state should create a system much like WIC, where you have the various food items we deem to be necessary and only those items, checked by a computer, can be purchased with a Link card. Everything else in your shopping basket gets rejected and you have to pay for it with other funds. That's already how SNAP works. You can also receive cash Link benefits because not everything a person needs is sold at a retail store. Like rent, bills, tuition, etc. lol nope

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:48 PM) He added that "goal" after giving his list. The idea that welfare recipients would have one card, that the card is subject to review, that people can file complaints, that people need permission for big purchases, etc. are all general ideas I agree with. His "goal" was apparent without being stated--that's the whole reason for these public forums and reviews he wants. Why should you be able to file a complaint that results in judicial review of any individual's welfare spending? Should that apply to corporations that receive any sort of public monies as well? What you and your hundreds/thousands in tax subsidies? Should I be able to challenge anything you spend in court?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:45 PM) For the money I spend that I expect the government will give back to me come tax time, yep. Edit: I should clarify I don't submit it to public review and comment. But I submit what I have to submit and make the rest available if the IRS really wants to take a look. You don't go through anything close to what Duke posed and what you said were good ideas. Don't forget your monthly drug test for the tax subsidies, too!