I am OUTRAGED!

[SayItAintSoJoe]

No offense to you personally, but IMO, this is a huge problem in this country today, that everyone assumes that, rather than try to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system for one group, that somehow two wrongs make it more right if the other side can exploit the system too.

 

As for congressional pensions, Dr. Paul did recently call out folks like Gringrich who use their position to start a lobbying career, and said they should not be able to keep their pension.... These are positive things we can do to reduce the amount of governement waste, not to balance it out by letting the other side waste more of the money we don't have too...

 

I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem, but I really don't see why you don't think this is perfectly acceptable... Welfare is put in place as a safety-net, hence why one of the main stipulations is you have to be seeking work, drug-rehabilitation, etc.... Again, it's put in as a safety net, not so someone can "get their jollies on the public dollar". All the latter does is give incentives to stay dependant on welfare, which is the exact opposite aim of the program (in theory anyway).

 

We need to be doing the same at all levels to ensure that dollars are going to the right places and not being wasted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not anymore right for welfare dollars to be used on entirely unnecessary "jollies" than it is for any other funds to be misappropriated. Nothing is supposed to come free in this world, so no, you should not just be able to use welfare on whatever you want (particularly not if you have kids to feed, clothe and house).

 

I think everyone would agree that there is a need to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system. I just don't see how this law does that. Do you really think that not letting someone on welfare use an atm machine in a liquor store, strip club, or casino is going to keep welfare money from being spent at those places? It will not have any affect IMO.

 

On top of that how much will the law cost to implement? If no money is being saved and the law is not achieving the intended goal is it all worth it?

Edited February 3, 2012 by SayItAintSoJoe

[gbpfan1231]

No offense to you personally, but IMO, this is a huge problem in this country today, that everyone assumes that, rather than try to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system for one group, that somehow two wrongs make it more right if the other side can exploit the system too.

 

As for congressional pensions, Dr. Paul did recently call out folks like Gringrich who use their position to start a lobbying career, and said they should not be able to keep their pension.... These are positive things we can do to reduce the amount of governement waste, not to balance it out by letting the other side waste more of the money we don't have too...

 

I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem, but I really don't see why you don't think this is perfectly acceptable... Welfare is put in place as a safety-net, hence why one of the main stipulations is you have to be seeking work, drug-rehabilitation, etc.... Again, it's put in as a safety net, not so someone can "get their jollies on the public dollar". All the latter does is give incentives to stay dependant on welfare, which is the exact opposite aim of the program (in theory anyway).

 

We need to be doing the same at all levels to ensure that dollars are going to the right places and not being wasted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not anymore right for welfare dollars to be used on entirely unnecessary "jollies" than it is for any other funds to be misappropriated. Nothing is supposed to come free in this world, so no, you should not just be able to use welfare on whatever you want (particularly not if you have kids to feed, clothe and house).

Amen!!!!!

 

The classic lefty argument - hey don't look at the waste on the govt handout programs it is not as BIG as what we spend on other things. What ever happened to being agry at ALL of it. Same with trying to cut back on spending. hey don't look at things like PBS or Planned Parenthood - yea that might be easy spending cuts but it is not huge like defense so don't even look at it. Let's look at it all and if it is an easy cut and only 1 million frickin do it!!!!

 

Saying a few have it figured out is a joke - thousands upon thousands have it figured out and know that people won't do much about it.

 

It seems like an easy way to get welfare people to not spend MY money on wasteful things so I say go for it. I am also all for getting rid of the waste at the top and if easy go for it - if not then work at it and get rid of it.

[Joessfl]

Amen!!!!!

 

The classic lefty argument - hey don't look at the waste on the govt handout programs it is not as BIG as what we spend on other things. What ever happened to being agry at ALL of it. Same with trying to cut back on spending. hey don't look at things like PBS or Planned Parenthood - yea that might be easy spending cuts but it is not huge like defense so don't even look at it. Let's look at it all and if it is an easy cut and only 1 million frickin do it!!!!

 

Saying a few have it figured out is a joke - thousands upon thousands have it figured out and know that people won't do much about it.

 

It seems like an easy way to get welfare people to not spend MY money on wasteful things so I say go for it. I am also all for getting rid of the waste at the top and if easy go for it - if not then work at it and get rid of it.

 

Amen!

 

Since this makes the most sense, many will not understand it.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Joessfl

[delusions of grandeur]

I think everyone would agree that there is a need to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system. I just don't see how this law does that. Do you really think that not letting someone on welfare use an atm machine in a liquor store, strip club, or casino is going to keep welfare money from being spent at those places? It will not have any affect IMO.

 

On top of that how much will the law cost to implement? If no money is being saved and the law is not achieving the intended goal is it all worth it?

That is a valid argument, whether the measure actually decreases misuse, and perhaps you are correct that if they can use an ATM somewhere else, then well, it may be a futile effort.... I'd like to think that this measure does not call for costly active enforcement, but rather simply making it illegal for these nonsanctioned estabishments to knowingly serve those using welfare, though maybe that's as naive as assuming the measure will have any affect.

 

But I was more disputing the idea that corruption elsewhere makes it okay for someone dependent on government money to use it in such a blatantly wasteful way, when the purpose of the program is to provide a safety net during hard times Again, this is why there's stipulations that you have to actively be seeking work or in drug rehab, etc. That's it... If you're not trying to help people to lift themselves up from poverty through welfare, then you're just enabling them to stay there.

 

I'm not even sure why even allow welfare in paper currency that can go to the black markets or any other misuse, with pretty much all legitimate business done electronically nowadays, .... Maybe we'd be helping the poor out more at the same time as making it more accountable by issuing debit cards just the same as food stamps are on now (right?). Isn't how they already regulate food stamps? Why not take this simple measure to say, yes we'll help you with necessities during this tough time, but you sure aren't wasting it on gambling, booze, and things you can only buy with cash (drugs).

 

I mean, if we're going to make it our place to provide a safety net for the poor that we pay for with our tax dollars, then it's not too much to ask for only effort (not even success) in helping themselves, and not just using it to enable wasteful and addictive habits like gambling and substance abuse. So just because there are other wastes we need to address too, does not mean that we should continue a system that where we pay for whatever any "disfortunate" person, whether it be through their own fault or not, wants to do with our tax dollars.

 

As for what we should do about corruption waste at the top, that part's easy too. Vote Ron Paul

 

Edited February 3, 2012 by delusions of granduer

[detlef]

No offense to you personally, but IMO, this is a huge problem in this country today, that everyone assumes that, rather than try to eliminate corruption and exploitation of the system for one group, that somehow two wrongs make it more right if the other side can exploit the system too.

 

As for congressional pensions, Dr. Paul did recently call out folks like Gringrich who use their position to start a lobbying career, and said they should not be able to keep their pension.... These are positive things we can do to reduce the amount of governement waste, not to balance it out by letting the other side waste more of the money we don't have too...

 

I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem, but I really don't see why you don't think this is perfectly acceptable... Welfare is put in place as a safety-net, hence why one of the main stipulations is you have to be seeking work, drug-rehabilitation, etc.... Again, it's put in as a safety net, not so someone can "get their jollies on the public dollar". All the latter does is give incentives to stay dependant on welfare, which is the exact opposite aim of the program (in theory anyway).

 

We need to be doing the same at all levels to ensure that dollars are going to the right places and not being wasted, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not anymore right for welfare dollars to be used on entirely unnecessary "jollies" than it is for any other funds to be misappropriated. Nothing is supposed to come free in this world, so no, you should not just be able to use welfare on whatever you want (particularly not if you have kids to feed, clothe and house).

I think you missed my point entirely. I don't think welfare moms should be driving new Caddilacs and I'd prefer that welfare money not get spent at strip clubs. I like the fact that food stamps are to be used for food. My issue is this, they seem like problems that sound worse than they are. I mean, we live in a flawed world with plenty of warts and we need to prioritize. If, in fact, there's truly rampant abuse of these things, then sure, let's go at it. But, and again, this is just a guess, they just stand out because the sound so horrible but don't add up to all that much. But I think we've got some pretty big fish to fry, so, as unsavory as it might seem, I'd rather look at the big ticket items first and then make sure stinky isn't making it rain with public hand-out money. Unless, in fact, the problem is far more rampant and expensive to tax payers than I realize.

 

Thing is, that's never been shown to be the case.

[detlef]

Amen!!!!!

 

The classic lefty argument - hey don't look at the waste on the govt handout programs it is not as BIG as what we spend on other things. What ever happened to being agry at ALL of it. Same with trying to cut back on spending. hey don't look at things like PBS or Planned Parenthood - yea that might be easy spending cuts but it is not huge like defense so don't even look at it. Let's look at it all and if it is an easy cut and only 1 million frickin do it!!!!

 

Saying a few have it figured out is a joke - thousands upon thousands have it figured out and know that people won't do much about it.

 

It seems like an easy way to get welfare people to not spend MY money on wasteful things so I say go for it. I am also all for getting rid of the waste at the top and if easy go for it - if not then work at it and get rid of it.

Now this, on the other hand, takes feeding our sanctimonious egos to another level. Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood would have horrible consequences and the massive majority of the money does not go to abortions but rather, provides needed health services, yes Susan Komen, like breast cancer screenings, to low income women. The cost to society of not doing what PP does would massively outweigh the cost of supporting PP.

 

I would say doing things like this is the epitome of efficient government. Spending less now so we don't have to spend more later. That is, assuming that we don't want to completely turn our backs on women with cancer or the massive uptick in un-planned children that would be prevented, not by abortion, but through education and contraception.

[delusions of grandeur]

I think you missed my point entirely. I don't think welfare moms should be driving new Caddilacs and I'd prefer that welfare money not get spent at strip clubs. I like the fact that food stamps are to be used for food. My issue is this, they seem like problems that sound worse than they are. I mean, we live in a flawed world with plenty of warts and we need to prioritize. If, in fact, there's truly rampant abuse of these things, then sure, let's go at it. But, and again, this is just a guess, they just stand out because the sound so horrible but don't add up to all that much. But I think we've got some pretty big fish to fry, so, as unsavory as it might seem, I'd rather look at the big ticket items first and then make sure stinky isn't making it rain with public hand-out money. Unless, in fact, the problem is far more rampant and expensive to tax payers than I realize.

 

Thing is, that's never been shown to be the case.

Na, like I said in that second paragraph, "I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem", and I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that welfare misuse was okay... I was more using to make a broader point, that too many in this country assume, hey everyone exploits, so as long as I can exploit the system just the same it's okay....

 

But demogague-ing and scapegoating aside (which really is what it is when they make measures like this, while neglecting the systematic policies and corruption that are really bleeding us dry); But welfare reform is a big issue to some because nobody likes to work hard for a living, while someone else can get a government handout to do whatever they want... I'll stop there, since we're already in agreement about that and that there are bigger fish to fry, but people are by and large tired of spending trillions to bail out the "too big to fail" who created the mess, just the same as the "too little to fail" to fund someone else's unnecessary and harmful habits (that in many cases might have contributed to many of them being on welfare in the first place, if they're taking part in gambling and drinking away all their money).

 

But I definitely agree, that on my list of spending cuts to be made, welfare & entitlement reform would be extremely low priority. I look at that more as making sure money is going to the right place, but reducing the defect is going to have to come from bigger money-bleeders like the military-industrial-complex (I refuse to use the word defense, because the 2 are extremely different, and the former is what costs us in both bloodshed and trillions, as we reap no rewards and become no safer).

[SayItAintSoJoe]

Na, like I said in that second paragraph, "I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem", and I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that welfare misuse was okay... I was more using to make a broader point, that too many in this country assume, hey everyone exploits, so as long as I can exploit the system just the same it's okay....

 

But demogague-ing and scapegoating aside (which really is what it is when they make measures like this, while neglecting the systematic policies and corruption that are really bleeding us dry); But welfare reform is a big issue to some because nobody likes to work hard for a living, while someone else can get a government handout to do whatever they want... I'll stop there, since we're already in agreement about that and that there are bigger fish to fry, but people are by and large tired of spending trillions to bail out the "too big to fail" who created the mess, just the same as the "too little to fail" to fund someone else's unnecessary and harmful habits (that in many cases might have contributed to many of them being on welfare in the first place, if they're taking part in gambling and drinking away all their money).

 

But I definitely agree, that on my list of spending cuts to be made, welfare & entitlement reform would be extremely low priority. I look at that more as making sure money is going to the right place, but reducing the defect is going to have to come from bigger money-bleeders like the military-industrial-complex (I refuse to use the word defense, because the 2 are extremely different, and the former is what costs us in both bloodshed and trillions, as we reap no rewards and become no safer).

 

Good post.

[SNOWBOUND33]

Na, like I said in that second paragraph, "I'm with you that it's unfair to target poor as if they're the primary problem", and I didn't mean to imply that you were saying that welfare misuse was okay... I was more using to make a broader point, that too many in this country assume, hey everyone exploits, so as long as I can exploit the system just the same it's okay....

 

But demogague-ing and scapegoating aside (which really is what it is when they make measures like this, while neglecting the systematic policies and corruption that are really bleeding us dry); But welfare reform is a big issue to some because nobody likes to work hard for a living, while someone else can get a government handout to do whatever they want... I'll stop there, since we're already in agreement about that and that there are bigger fish to fry, but people are by and large tired of spending trillions to bail out the "too big to fail" who created the mess, just the same as the "too little to fail" to fund someone else's unnecessary and harmful habits (that in many cases might have contributed to many of them being on welfare in the first place, if they're taking part in gambling and drinking away all their money).

 

But I definitely agree, that on my list of spending cuts to be made, welfare & entitlement reform would be extremely low priority. I look at that more as making sure money is going to the right place, but reducing the defect is going to have to come from bigger money-bleeders like the military-industrial-complex (I refuse to use the word defense, because the 2 are extremely different, and the former is what costs us in both bloodshed and trillions, as we reap no rewards and become no safer).

Disagree with the "become no safer". At what cost though?

[Ursa Majoris]

Amen!!!!!

 

The classic lefty argument - hey don't look at the waste on the govt handout programs it is not as BIG as what we spend on other things. What ever happened to being agry at ALL of it. Same with trying to cut back on spending. hey don't look at things like PBS or Planned Parenthood - yea that might be easy spending cuts but it is not huge like defense so don't even look at it. Let's look at it all and if it is an easy cut and only 1 million frickin do it!!!!

 

I'd be interested to read the post that says we should do nothing about such waste. It must be here somewhere.

 

Saying a few have it figured out is a joke - thousands upon thousands have it figured out and know that people won't do much about it.

 

Link? Or evidence of thousands of LaToyas in Cadillacs?

 

The bottom line is that if you're going to clear a blocked road, it's better to clear the big rocks first.

[delusions of grandeur]

Disagree with the "become no safer". At what cost though?

I know people hate to hear "blowback" as reasoning for attacks against us, but even the 9/11 commission has confirmed that blowback from overseas "operations" are a big contributing factor. What we call collateral damage is someone's family member (500,000 innocent civilians killed in Iraq), and that's only going to increase hostility.... Just imagine if the shoe was on the other foot Chinese were here occupying our country, and killed a half million innocent people.

 

I'm sorry, but it's a bit naive to think that they only hate us for our "freedom" and not the fact that we're over there constantly kicking the hornets nest, expecting it's going to make us less likely to be stung... Maybe that's currently the case for us with an ocean separating us, but it certainly hasn't made our troops any safer protecting interests that have nothing to do with theirs or our interests.

 

But my humanitarian message aside, the part it appears we agree on is that we simply cannot afford to keep forcing nation-building abroad as we bankrupt our own country.... And as for being safe, how safe would we be if we got attacked here while all of our resources are tied up abroad? That's where I think an important distinction needs to be made between defense and the MIC that does not serve our best interests.

[gbpfan1231]

I'd be interested to read the post that says we should do nothing about such waste. It must be here somewhere.

 

 

 

Link? Or evidence of thousands of LaToyas in Cadillacs?

 

The bottom line is that if you're going to clear a blocked road, it's better to clear the big rocks first.

I diasgree. If it will takes days to clear the blocked road by moving one huge rock as opposed to one or two days by easily moving some small ones and then driving around the one big rock left go hit the small rocks.

 

When people look at cutting back on what they spend money on I am guessing people may look at the mortgage and say if I refinance now I can $5,000 but that takes a bit of time and work. That same family may go to Mcdonalds for breakfast then stop at Starbucks for a $4.00 coffee. Do you really think thsi family will say let's keep spending the mcdonalds/Startbucks money and wait to save on that until AFTER we get the mortgage refinanced? The answer is no - you hit the low hanging fruit when it is simple.

 

No I don't have a link of thousands of LaToya's driving cadilacs and asking for one was just being a ahole. Thousands of people are scamming the welfare system and if you don't think that is the case you are blind and don't live in the real world.

 

It is your comments like the Latoya one that makes it appear you are brushing over that waste.

[Ursa Majoris]

I diasgree. If it will takes days to clear the blocked road by moving one huge rock as opposed to one or two days by easily moving some small ones and then driving around the one big rock left go hit the small rocks.

 

When people look at cutting back on what they spend money on I am guessing people may look at the mortgage and say if I refinance now I can $5,000 but that takes a bit of time and work. That same family may go to Mcdonalds for breakfast then stop at Starbucks for a $4.00 coffee. Do you really think thsi family will say let's keep spending the mcdonalds/Startbucks money and wait to save on that until AFTER we get the mortgage refinanced? The answer is no - you hit the low hanging fruit when it is simple.

 

No I don't have a link of thousands of LaToya's driving cadilacs and asking for one was just being a ahole. Thousands of people are scamming the welfare system and if you don't think that is the case you are blind and don't live in the real world.

 

It is your comments like the Latoya one that makes it appear you are brushing over that waste.

I don't know why I bother engaging with you or your brother but still:

 

Moving the small rocks, in this analogy, isn't unblocking anything. In fact, it's likely to add to the blockage once enforcement costs are factored in.

Why is asking for a link to prove your urban legend "being an a-hole"? With the next breath you reiterate that thousands are scamming the welfare system. Tell you what, show me how much is being lost from scamming the welfare system. I know there's some but I don't know how much. You evidently do, so educate me.

And I'm still looking for the post that says anyone else posting in this thread is supportive of welfare wastage, as opposed to it being the highest priority.

[gbpfan1231]

I don't know why I bother engaging with you or your brother but still:

 

Moving the small rocks, in this analogy, isn't unblocking anything. In fact, it's likely to add to the blockage once enforcement costs are factored in.

Why is asking for a link to prove your urban legend "being an a-hole"? With the next breath you reiterate that thousands are scamming the welfare system. Tell you what, show me how much is being lost from scamming the welfare system. I know there's some but I don't know how much. You evidently do, so educate me.

And I'm still looking for the post that says anyone else posting in this thread is supportive of welfare wastage, as opposed to it being the highest priority.

I will throw it back on you - please post where I said that people in this thread are SUPPORTING welfare wastage.

 

Again - I am amazed at how hypocritical you are - in the same post where you imply I post something wrong that others said you do EXACTLY the same thing.

 

I am not the best at searching this forum but there were plenty of posts back when there were discussions of cutting spending and a lot of topics were brought up (I believe by Perch) and a lot of replies came back that they were small items and things like Defense need to hit - that is what I meant. I am sure you knew that but you decided to go off put words in my mouth where you say I said people are SUPPORTING welfare waste. My point was (and you know it) was that you can go after smaller waste at the same time as larger waste.

 

Not sure what you mean by my brother? Maybe just another off the cuff comment that did not need to be said???

[bushwacked]

I'd be interested to read the post that says we should do nothing about such waste. It must be here somewhere.

 

I win all the arguments I make up.

[gbpfan1231]

I win all the arguments I make up.

Keep it up - you are good at it.

[Ursa Majoris]

I will throw it back on you - please post where I said that people in this thread are SUPPORTING welfare wastage.

 

Again - I am amazed at how hypocritical you are - in the same post where you imply I post something wrong that others said you do EXACTLY the same thing.

 

I am not the best at searching this forum but there were plenty of posts back when there were discussions of cutting spending and a lot of topics were brought up (I believe by Perch) and a lot of replies came back that they were small items and things like Defense need to hit - that is what I meant. I am sure you knew that but you decided to go off put words in my mouth where you say I said people are SUPPORTING welfare waste. My point was (and you know it) was that you can go after smaller waste at the same time as larger waste.

 

Not sure what you mean by my brother? Maybe just another off the cuff comment that did not need to be said???

Still waiting for the evidence to show what quantity of waste / scam we are talking about here. Still waiting for the link to the welfare queens. Still waiting for you to show that this is more substantial than something you heard on the radio.

 

ETA: When you finally do get around to learning Google, compare the numbers you come up with to, oh, I don't know..........bags of Halliburton laundry.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Ursa Majoris

[gbpfan1231]

Still waiting for the evidence to show what quantity of waste / scam we are talking about here. Still waiting for the link to the welfare queens. Still waiting for you to show that this is more substantial than something you heard on the radio.

 

ETA: When you finally do get around to learning Google, compare the numbers you come up with to, oh, I don't know..........bags of Halliburton laundry.

I used to think you were smart.

 

Never did I say the waste is more than Haliburton laundry. Can you get this into your thick skull. I said there are thousands of people who have scammed the govt welfare system.

 

Let me ask you this - do you honestly think the number of people who are scamming the govt welfare system is less than 1,000 people?

 

I don't care how much it is costing the taxpayers - all I know is that it IS costing the taxpayers and I call that waste and I don't like it.

 

6th paragraph down mentions some big numbers - that was 2007 but I am sure it has been cleaned up since.

 

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/fraud/PG270.htm

 

So - who were you referring to as my brother just before you put words into my mouth?

[gbpfan1231]

Still waiting for the evidence to show what quantity of waste / scam we are talking about here. Still waiting for the link to the welfare queens. Still waiting for you to show that this is more substantial than something you heard on the radio.

 

ETA: When you finally do get around to learning Google, compare the numbers you come up with to, oh, I don't know..........bags of Halliburton laundry.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138644284.html

 

Looks like we may have thousands of people scamming just ONE program.

[Ursa Majoris]

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/138644284.html

 

Looks like we may have thousands of people scamming just ONE program.

This is your evidence?

 

Madison -- A new audit has found more than $300,000 in suspicious out-of-state spending in the state’s food assistance program for the poor.

 

The state’s $1.1 billion a year FoodShare program is required by federal rules to let recipients to use their benefits to buy food in other states, and the audit notes that in many cases that can be for legitimate reasons such as a recipient who lives near the state line or who takes a trip.

 

But the Legislative Audit Bureau report found $324,200 in spending by FoodShare recipients that was done entirely in other states. That included $151,500 that was spent entirely in states that have no border with Wisconsin.

 

“My constituents first alerted me to potential inappropriate use of FoodShare benefits in other states," said Rep. Samantha Kerkman (R-Randall), who requested the review as the co-chairwoman of the Legislature's Joint Audit Committee. "These results make it clear that reforms are needed in the program.”

 

For the last year, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has been reporting on fraud in FoodShare, which is run by the state and almost entirely paid for by the federal government. The program is meant to help needy individuals and families purchase food.

 

A June review by the newspaper found nine Facebook users in Milwaukee and about 70 altogether nationwide who posted to Facebook seeking to either buy or sell food assistance benefits illegally or help others do so. In April, the newspaper also reported that nearly 2,000 FoodShare recipients claimed they lost their card six or more times in 2010 and requested replacements -- a sign that investigators said could indicate fraud.

 

The latest audit noted that out of state spending in FoodShare amounted to about $32.9 million, or 3% of the total spending in the program. The suspicious out-of-state spending was done by an extremely small group -- about .04% of the 382,449 groups of individuals and families receiving FoodShare benefits.

 

$300,000 out of $1.1 billion? That's it? And it IS being investigated and prosecuted successfully. Pretty much makes the case for what I was saying.

[Ursa Majoris]

I don't care how much it is costing the taxpayers - all I know is that it IS costing the taxpayers and I call that waste and I don't like it.

Fair enough, if it makes you feel good. What about if it's a million in waste that costs 2 million to clean up? Who is paying the 2 million?

 

The thing that bugs me about all this isn't some liberal bleeding heart opinion that we shouldn't go after welfare cheats (we should, we are), it's that so much right wing energy is focused on this relative trivia while colossal fraud and waste happens elsewhere, conveniently ignored by the same people ranting about the mythical LaToya and her pink Cadillac.

[tosberg34]

Fair enough, if it makes you feel good. What about if it's a million in waste that costs 2 million to clean up? Who is paying the 2 million?

 

The thing that bugs me about all this isn't some liberal bleeding heart opinion that we shouldn't go after welfare cheats (we should, we are), it's that so much right wing energy is focused on this relative trivia while colossal fraud and waste happens elsewhere, conveniently ignored by the same people ranting about the mythical LaToya and her pink Cadillac.

 

If it makes you feel better to blow hot air all day long, that's fine too. But in the end it's still hot air and still completely wrong.

[gbpfan1231]

Fair enough, if it makes you feel good. What about if it's a million in waste that costs 2 million to clean up? Who is paying the 2 million?

 

The thing that bugs me about all this isn't some liberal bleeding heart opinion that we shouldn't go after welfare cheats (we should, we are), it's that so much right wing energy is focused on this relative trivia while colossal fraud and waste happens elsewhere, conveniently ignored by the same people ranting about the mythical LaToya and her pink Cadillac.

What bugs me is you putting words in my mouth and you still demand I add links and I do and you still don't show where I said people SUPPORT welfare waste. Will you admit you were wrong?

 

I never said was not against waste at the top. I am. I just don't like how a lot of liberals just gloss over the waste.