Vitter Wants Those Who Cleared Shelves During Glitch Banned from Food Benefits

[slow06]

Which is why it should be handled by the community churches and individuals. They get tired of that and they can tell the bums to fuck off

Again, I can’t really speak for any church but my own, but I don’t see us denying food to people. If we did, we certainly would not do it in the … heavy handed … manner you are describing.

Even if I were to see abuse and turn a person down, they would simply drive 2 blocks and hit up the next church (at least around here). I’m all for handling it locally and cutting food-stamps to a bare minimum ASAP, But just kick the idea that it would stop abuse to the curb right now. That is not realistic with the current system (or lack thereof).

Here's a thought-tell me if I'm wrong.

The government should hire enough workers to canvas the entire lot of people on welfare/foodstamps/etc. People who go door to door every so often, making sure that those receiving benefits aren't taking advantage of them. If they walk in to a house with multiple big screen TVs, game systems, high dollar cellphones, a Cadillac in the front yard, etc...then look at the list and see these people are getting a shit ton of free money...make a note, and next month those people will receive a letter saying that, based on the inspection, they are no longer eligible for benefits.

This is what I believe is wrong with the system. There is no accountability to the system. I've filled out the forms online for food stamps. They ask questions that are supposed to give them an idea of how bad you really need help. Questions that anyone can lie about. And there's no real person-to-person interview, it's mostly done over the phone. Another chance to lie to benefit yourself.

I think the government would save a shit ton more money hiring people to do this-even paying for company vehicle/gas/insurance-than they are spending on the people taking advantage of the system.

I love the idea, but I think you would see lawsuits pretty quickly. People have the right to this, and the second you take it away they will absolutely lose their minds. They will sit there on their IPhone, on their new furniture, with the caddy out front and the LED TV on the wall playing their satellite TV, and tell you that it is your fault that they can’t feed their kids. And they will do it with a straight face, because they believe it 100 percent.

Also it seems that it would be hard to come up with any real standard based on possessions. First of all, having stuff don’t necessarily equate to income, or having cash to feed your kids. Second, back to the rights issue. People thing they have a right to have an LED TV. Tell them to sell it to feed their family, they will look at you like you are speaking French.

[stevo]

Here's a thought-tell me if I'm wrong.

The government should hire enough workers to canvas the entire lot of people on welfare/foodstamps/etc. People who go door to door every so often, making sure that those receiving benefits aren't taking advantage of them. If they walk in to a house with multiple big screen TVs, game systems, high dollar cellphones, a Cadillac in the front yard, etc...then look at the list and see these people are getting a shit ton of free money...make a note, and next month those people will receive a letter saying that, based on the inspection, they are no longer eligible for benefits.

This is what I believe is wrong with the system. There is no accountability to the system. I've filled out the forms online for food stamps. They ask questions that are supposed to give them an idea of how bad you really need help. Questions that anyone can lie about. And there's no real person-to-person interview, it's mostly done over the phone. Another chance to lie to benefit yourself.

I think the government would save a shit ton more money hiring people to do this-even paying for company vehicle/gas/insurance-than they are spending on the people taking advantage of the system.

Are you going to be the one that goes beating on the doors of the brood-sow hood rats in the ghetto, asking for proof on how they spent their welfare?

You couldn't pay enough to do that job.

Stevo

[asphaltjunkie]

Here's a thought-tell me if I'm wrong.

The government should hire enough workers to canvas the entire lot of people on welfare/foodstamps/etc. People who go door to door every so often, making sure that those receiving benefits aren't taking advantage of them. If they walk in to a house with multiple big screen TVs, game systems, high dollar cellphones, a Cadillac in the front yard, etc...then look at the list and see these people are getting a shit ton of free money...make a note, and next month those people will receive a letter saying that, based on the inspection, they are no longer eligible for benefits.

This is what I believe is wrong with the system. There is no accountability to the system. I've filled out the forms online for food stamps. They ask questions that are supposed to give them an idea of how bad you really need help. Questions that anyone can lie about. And there's no real person-to-person interview, it's mostly done over the phone. Another chance to lie to benefit yourself.

I think the government would save a shit ton more money hiring people to do this-even paying for company vehicle/gas/insurance-than they are spending on the people taking advantage of the system.

[Forever_frost]

Who are you to judge? They probably spent hours filling out forms to get enough government handouts to be able to afford that Escalade.

Which is why it should be handled by the community churches and individuals. They get tired of that and they can tell the bums to fuck off

[BP]

She'd work a lot of hours getting bikes/donation for buying bikes...etc..etc. Just to see folks roll up in high dollar cars, load up 2-3 bikes and leave. No thanks, no return contribution and zero sign of appreciation - basically like it was expected to be there for them to take at will.

Who are you to judge? They probably spent hours filling out forms to get enough government handouts to be able to afford that Escalade.

[ceyko]

Charities don't care, either. I mean, the workers do, but they can't stop the abuse. So what good does caring do when you can't do anything about it? Completely irrelevant point you're trying to make.

I'd like to argue this, since I agree wholeheartedly with FF's concept. I'd rather see people in need being helped by family, friends, charities and churches as opposed to ALL federal/state tax money.

However, this is precisely why my wife does not help local (yes churches) with bicycle drives anymore. She'd work a lot of hours getting bikes/donation for buying bikes...etc..etc. Just to see folks roll up in high dollar cars, load up 2-3 bikes and leave. No thanks, no return contribution and zero sign of appreciation - basically like it was expected to be there for them to take at will.

That still does not change my opinion that people should be helped by locals first (list above in first paragraph). I just think the locals doing it need to keep it tight and not be afraid of being called names if they piss off people abusing their efforts.

[aggie97]

I always thought it would be a good idea to farm out sexual offenders, and murders to 3rd world country prisons. Not only could we get the prisons costs way down, but it would help the poorer countrys financially

That' is not a bad idea!

[War Machine]

Ship them to North Korea and see how bad they really can have it. Win/Win.

I always thought it would be a good idea to farm out sexual offenders, and murders to 3rd world country prisons. Not only could we get the prisons costs way down, but it would help the poorer countrys financially

[bcoop]

Well the government does have recourse, they can cut people off. But as has been made very clear, they likely won't do that at least on a meaningful scale.

.

Yeah, my bad. They do have recourse, they just refuse to do it because it won't get them reelected.

[slow06]

The abuse does continue with local charities. Government has no recourse for abuse, either.




Charities don't care, either. I mean, the workers do, but they can't stop the abuse. So what good does caring do when you can't do anything about it? Completely irrelevant point you're trying to make.

Well the government does have recourse, they can cut people off. But as has been made very clear, they likely won't do that at least on a meaningful scale.

So I guess that is a moot point as well. Freeloader's gunna freeload.

[bcoop]

I like the idea, but I don't know that local organizations can pick up all of the slack that would be left.

Plus they have no recourse (and in the case of churches would probably not exercise it even if they did) to handle those who take advantage of the system. I think the abuse would still continue.

The abuse does continue with local charities. Government has no recourse for abuse, either.

But the charities tend to see who keeps coming back over and over and actually care if the dude picking up the food box is in a new Escalade on 22's smoking a black and mild. Government doesn't.

Charities don't care, either. I mean, the workers do, but they can't stop the abuse. So what good does caring do when you can't do anything about it? Completely irrelevant point you're trying to make.

[Forever_frost]

I like the idea, but I don't know that local organizations can pick up all of the slack that would be left.

Plus they have no recourse (and in the case of churches would probably not exercise it even if they did) to handle those who take advantage of the system. I think the abuse would still continue.

But the charities tend to see who keeps coming back over and over and actually care if the dude picking up the food box is in a new Escalade on 22's smoking a black and mild. Government doesn't.

[racrguy]

I like the idea, but I don't know that local organizations can pick up all of the slack that would be left.

Plus they have no recourse (and in the case of churches would probably not exercise it even if they did) to handle those who take advantage of the system. I think the abuse would still continue.

Exactly.

[Moose242]

Super massive rioting would be the result.

Stevo

I hope, just once in my life I can fire my M82A1 at a horde of ninjas from 1,000 yards away. A food stamp riot would be an ideal situation.

Anyone interested in helping out can meet me at the shop. Just bring beer or something.

[slow06]

Frost, this may be the most accurate, concise, and top point you've ever made that cannot be argued against. Charity and assistance has ALWAYS been best handled when left to those that do it at a local level and that do it out of kindness and servitude instead of socialism. That is all that is needed.

I like the idea, but I don't know that local organizations can pick up all of the slack that would be left.

Plus they have no recourse (and in the case of churches would probably not exercise it even if they did) to handle those who take advantage of the system. I think the abuse would still continue.