Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 04:00 PM) 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. 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? And you can keep spinning gun restrictions as not being a punishment, but it is. You're enacting restrictions on 99% of people who do nothing wrong. It might not be a punishment from the perspective of your intent, but it's certainly a punishment as a result.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) 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. 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. Lol, so now you worry about costs? Think of it as economic stimulus - we employ people AND spend more money! Economic growth for sure!

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:56 PM) So, SOME fraud is OK with you, because you can't stop all fraud, and requiring all these welfare recipients to jump thru all sorts of legal hoops to justify their need for aid is just wrong. Yet, you have no problem with trying to eliminate guns, even though you can't stop all gun crime, and have no problems making legal gun owners jump thru all sorts of legal hoops to justify their need for a gun. OK, got it. Exactly.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:14 PM) 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? 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. I don't know the current fraud rate. It's more than zero, and that's enough for me. I see no downsides. What downside could their be? It's about making an efficient welfare system where leechers aren't tolerated and the people that actually need the benefits get it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:12 PM) Doesn't "have" to involve the state? What kind of situation are you picturing here, one where the business realizes they've been scammed when the bank won't take the check/bill that they accepted, and then decides to do...nothing about it? Second Q: Is there anything that actually compels a grocery store to accept WIC funds? I guess i'm thinking small time - most of the time you're going to eat that loss. If it's a problem or the amount is big enough you'll report it. But if it's a 5 times a month at 20 bucks a pop type thing, you're just going to train your employees better, not get the state involved (what are they going to do about it anyway?) And as far as I know nothing compels a store to accept it. They just want that business.

And didn't they just pass a law allowing major ISP's to throttle your bandwidth if they suspect you're doing a lot of downloading? I could have sworn that was new within the last week or two.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 12:38 PM) Only torrents I've ever been on were private, and they required you to share (they wouldn't allow you to shut off sharing at the time), but this was years ago...I wouldn't use a torrent today if someone paid me to do it. Stop torrenting, even if you aren't sharing, you're putting yourself on watch lists. All of the major companies (i.e., movie/music industries) has everyone on a list. The question becomes if they'll ever be able to prosecute that many people. They might have your IP address, and that might tie you to an account and an address, but they still have to prove that YOU are the one downloading stuff illegally. If they change the laws to make "account owners" liable, then you'd have a problem. But as the law stands (at least as much as I know about it - disclaimer!) you could throw out a "well, someone hacked into my network and started downloading" as a defense and there's not much they could do to rebut that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 02:04 PM) That already happens with alcohol, tobacco and any other restricted item (drugs, guns, bunch of other stuff) 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:57 PM) 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? I already have that right now - Balta cited the link for filing a complaint. I don't want a judge wasting his/her day looking over debit card statements, but I do want the enforcement of the laws to be much better. If tracking purchases does that, then so be it. We're at a point where personal finance trackers can correctly label different purchases to different designated categories (entertainment, food, loans, whatever). Why not use technology and do the same thing with Link card purchases?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:50 PM) If a store takes a fraudulent check, or a counterfeit dollar bill, isn't the store itself responsible and out of the money if its discovered? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:42 PM) So don't say you agree with a lot of Duke's proposals that are entirely about his desire to publicly shame aid recipients. 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:40 PM) You keep a record of every single penny you spend throughout the year and submit it for public review and comment? 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.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:19 PM) Don't see anything in that quote that sounds anything like Duke's great ideas. Sounds like a purely administrative thing. Oh and the part right after that was about the high case-load administrators in Illinois have, increasingly the likelihood of these errors when coupled with our outdated computer system. I wonder how many millions of dollars a revamped system would be, though? The welfare leech that needs to "toughen up" and be publicly shamed, subjected to this: oh and let's not forget judicial review of her ability to leave the state and public review of all of her spending with the ability to force judicial review. You can go to the extreme as Duke did, but at the end of the day tracking the dollars spent and enforcing the rules that have already been put in place would be a great start and wouldn't require welfare recipients to become "public slaves."

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:18 PM) People on TANF etc. have proven their eligibility, but now you want full public and judicial review of every single expenditure every single person makes. I'd ask the same for money we're subsidizing your mortgage, student loans and child care with. Itemized expense reports with ORIGINAL receipts on the 1st of every month, please. And anything I don't like will be reported to the judge for appropriate review. I'm cool with that. I keep those records in case of a tax audit anyway. Edit: And proving eligibility is the same as me proving I have a loan. But that's not enough for me, I also have to go the extra step of proving how much interest I paid or how much daycare expenses I incurred. Welfare recipients don't have to show anything else. 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. You liberals would love that because you can then control a persons diet, and conservatives would love it because I'm not watching a 300 lb "welfare queen" purchase a 4th bag of chips on the public dime.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 01:11 PM) Should these proposed welfare requirements apply to childcare, student loan and mortgage subsidies that many Americans receive? How about businesses that receive some sort of government funding, should they be required to open all of their financial records to the public and judicial review as well? You have to prove to the government that you spent that money/own that property/have that loan in order to get those credits/deductions.

Screw trying to make the system better! It's awesome the way it is! http://www.rrstar.com/news/x2022728411/Ill...ood-stamp-fraud

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 12:56 PM) Nope. You're right, food stamp fraud is just a problem that affluent white males made up to further their anti-poor or colored person agenda: http://www.businessinsider.com/ebony-marti...amp-scam-2012-6 Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ebony-marti...6#ixzz2MbET0lk3 http://www.illinoisobserver.net/tag/illino...od-stamp-fraud/ http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/12/07/wau...od-stamp-fraud/

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 08:04 AM) It's definitely a treatment technique that they described as something they don't regularly do...so it might well be something that can be replicated in other kids. (Of course, for that to happen, it would actually have to be systematically tried. Thankfully, the National Institutes of Health will have the number of grants it disperses cut in half this year, because we don't want to know whether this might work elsewhere.) I wonder how the kid got infected in the first place. Mother-child infection rates are really low if the mother is being treated. Like less than 2% low. http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomp...ns/hivaids.html

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 12:19 PM) Everybody's seen the proverbial welfare queen buying all that food on foodstamps and then paying cash for her fillets and booze and then loading it up into her new Caddy! Or at least every conservative seems to have seen someone like that. To whatever extent that there's TANF/SNAP/WIC/Link fraud, nothing Duke's said would have any impact on that. You've seriously never seen these people before?

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 10:58 AM) I kind of agree; it was good, not great, but I give Ben Affleck credit for building and maintaining suspense even though the ending was never in doubt. I heard differently regarding its accuracy, and that only the final runway scenes were enhanced. I think even Jimmy Carter said as much. SPOILERS AHOY! In essence, the entire movie was makemup hollywood. Again, doesn't detract from a well-made movie, but I dunno, it has to lose points for basically being "political" while also being fake.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 10:54 AM) but, they talked The one negative...

The Walking Dead was refreshing this week. Probably the best episode since the pilot.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 4, 2013 -> 10:11 AM) There's an order-of-magnitude difference between duke's sociopathic proposals and some level of structure to a social program. As it is, we already have a system that only allows WIC funds to be used on pre-approved goods. Ok great, but Link cards don't work like that.

Totally late to the party, but the wifey and I watched Argo this weekend. I didn't see any of the other Oscar nominated movies, but I'm a little surprised that it won best picture given what I've heard about all of the other movies. It was GOOD, but I didn't think it was anything special. And then reading up on it afterwards I found out that 90% of the movie was made up (pretty much every scene intended to ratchet up the intensity except for the taking of the embassy in the beginning).

You think holding people accountable for receiving government funds is a bad thing? You don't think on some level it would be a good idea to make sure people using those funds are using them for their intended purpose?