In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2434
Online now 2314 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
That sentence in used in a discussion about welfare is a bit of an oxymoron , don't you think?
I'm not for welfare at all, but $200 is $200
If they spend it on crab or crappy food, it doesn't matter. They only get x amount of money. If they use it all for 1 meal of crab and eat cat food the rest of the month, I don't see the issue.
You cant fix stupid. The argument that they should make "smart food choices", is even more laughable than the welfare concept itself
This post was edited by B1G Badger 10 months ago
They are extremely adept at the last one.
Dear Blue Board,
Welfare recipients aren't the reason you can't afford crab for dinner. Your inability to save/invest properly and your dead end job are the reason you can't afford to eat crab.
PS, Get your money up.
Crabs are only as expensive as the Hooker who gave them to you.
My junior and senior year in HS me and my best friend worked at a grocery store and I turned down every offer to go from bagger to cashier just to avoid WIC people, they'd stroll up with Hawaiian punch and oreos and I'd just watch my buddy try to explain it's not the same thing. "How you mean that ain't fruit juice and crackers?"
They shouldnt be able to buy filet mingon,lobster,crab,etc. not that hard to stop that
Steve Spurrier is a God, and Mark Richt worships him
Government support should be used for staple foods only. I know some people do not care, but it bugs the crap out of me seeing people use my tax dollars to buy food I cannot afford to eat, then pull a large wad of cash from their pocket and pay for their cigarettes and beer.
Seeing a supermarket split into "food for paying customers" and "food for moochers" would be comical.
I don't see Al or Jesse having an issue with it
Here in Alabama they can buy soft drinks, energy drinks etc with EBT, do it everyday at my families store. And yes the buying with EBT then swiping a debit card for cigs happens...all the time. This is the base of the Democratic Party, these are the people the Dems spend a third of our budget on. God bless the poor, apparently they are more important than you and I.
It's no different than walking into their house at 3pm, which costs them $0 to live in, and see them watching Springer on a 70 inch TV
I get your and everyone's argument, and I agree with it. I guess I see a lot more of the system on a daily basis than most do, and I quit caring a long time ago. It is what it is and I doubt it ever changes.
No way man. Lobster, crab and filet mignon are for like multi-millionaires and rock stars and stuff.
I'm not saying this shouldn't upset the general public, but I am saying it should be waaaaaay down on the list of things that do upset the general public.
Simply put, people who receive welfare aren't the reason the economy's struggling. They're an easy target, and have been painted as evil moochers ever since Reagan's "welfare queens" characterization. Demonizing those who accept public aid is a cheap and easy way to score political points with people angry about the state of the country but too ignorant to actually take the time to educate themselves.
The vast, vast majority of public aid goes to the elderly, the disabled, and people in working households. The amount of public aid abuse/fraud in the US is negligible at best, and yet large segments of the population believe that "entitlements" are one of the biggest budget problems the country faces. Characterizing all recipients of "entitlements" as lazy, no-good moochers is a pathetically transparent (yet disturbingly effective) way of turning the middle class against the poor in an effort to distract them.
Why is it so effective? Because humans, by and large, are more likely to ascribe greater importance to something that they have seen/experienced in their personal lives. Many more people have seen an impoverished-looking person buy what looks like an expensive bottle of alcohol than have seen a mortgage application go through a robo-signing process, but that doesn't mean the poor-looking person causes more damage to the economy than financial fraud - nor does it even mean that the fraud happens less often. Yet a chorus of media voices will convince weak minds that, indeed, the poor guy is the real culprit.
Bank of America alone has negotiated almost a billion dollars worth of settlements for only three entities involved in mortgage-backed securities fraud. That's just in settlements. It also isn't counting the $8.5 billion settlement in the works now between BoA and a separate subset of investors. If you know anything about how settlements play out, you'll know that the settlement in cases this large is almost always a fraction of the actual damages asserted - and say what you will about lawyers pumping up damage claims, but these settlements are pennies on the dollar for actual damage caused. Case in point - in the recent $500 million settlement, it was estimated that over $350 billion of damages were caused. Scarily enough, this is only a few of the entities that profited off of widespread MBS fraud.
Which brings me to my point - getting irrationally angry at welfare recipients for purchasing some food that an observer deems to be "too good" for them is the basest form of ignorant classism. Would the world be better if there was no need for welfare? Absolutely. Would it be better if there was no welfare fraud? Of course. Has welfare fraud caused hundreds of billions of dollars of damage to the economy? Not even remotely close.
Non-partisan research and policy institute working on federal and state fiscal policies and public programs that affect low- and moderate-income Americans
* Largest MBS accord resolves three lawsuits * Countrywide accused of misleading investors April 17 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp has reached a record $500 million settlement with investors who claimed they were misled by its Countrywide unit into buying risky mortgage securities. The settlement requires the court approval, and is the largest accord to date resolving a federal securities class-action case over mortgage-backed securities, lawyers for the plaintiffs said on Wednesday. Investors had accused Countrywide and other defendants of misrepresenting the risks of securities they sold between January 2005 and November 2007. Countrywide was at the time the largest U.S. mortgage lender, and specialized in loans to people with weaker credit histories or who could not fully document their ability to pay. Bank of America bought Countrywide in July 2008. Lawrence Grayson, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment. Settlement papers are expected to be made public by the end of May, according to Steven Toll, a lawyer for some plaintiffs. The case is one of many in which investors have sought to hold banks responsible for allegedly misleading them about the quality of mortgage securities. Last May, Bank of America won court approval for a $315 million settlement of a similar lawsuit against its Merrill Lynch unit.
It's stupid and dumb of them to spend their money on that but doesn't bother me that much. I'm young, work hard, invest a lot and spend wisely and I can afford nice meals every now and then. They are only hurting themselves and will be stuck living off the $200 we give them a month plus the 1k they make a month. If I worry about me and work hard than I'll be fine and always have someone to wash my car for me so it's a win-win.
Let them decide what they buy, but they should be drug tested randomly....
This, and physically capable ones should have to put in an alloted amount of community service every week/month. If they are going to take our money from the govt, they should have to work for it like the rest of us do.
Mandatory drug testing was already proved to be more costly than it was effective (in Florida). Not sure many states would be willing to take that risk again even for random tests unless you could show the results would have a much better ROI.
I'drrather pay for drug tests than for drugs themselves.
I don't care about any of the money value in it honestly, IMO if you get state funding you should have to submit a drug test just like I do if I go apply for basically any job.
This post was edited by OHSethIO 10 months ago
But that's the problem: You also have to pay for the drug tests. And in Florida, they ended up spending a fortune on those drug tests and not nearly enough busts to show for it.
And like I said, I'd rather pay for the tests than the drugs.
Shit, for all I care. Take the 50 bucks out of the welfare check themselves for that month, whatever it is. Figure it out, and do it.
But you see what the problem is, right? Everyone had to take the tests in Florida to receive their money and only around 3% actually failed the test (the majority for marijuana). Using that as the only concrete data we have, what's the point in testing if it's not a problem?
Because it wasn't random. Not hard to make sure you're clean when you KNOW you're getting tested. Make them pay for the test when their number is called, so to speak.
I see the problem, money wise.
That's why I say randomly, your much more likely to catch someone if you call them the day of, or before and say come down to the court house and get your drug test, or no check. Than you are giving people a warning and letting them clean out their systems. It just turns out only 3% of them were TOTAL morons.
Like I said though, I just think it's the right thing to do to test someone who's getting funding from the state, if your going to test someone who's actually working for the state...
From what I've read, marijuana even after only light use can be detected in urine nearly 13 days after being smoked. For better or worse, that's basically two weeks out of every month they're supposed to be receiving welfare. I don't usually associate junkies with being able to take two weeks off of their drug cycle.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports