How about enforcing the tax code just as vigorously as Cass and Trump support looking for spending fraud? Aren’t those issues on different sides of the same coin?
The greater the magnitude of the giveaway, the more layers of bureaucrats get their hands on it. Skim some off the top? When the recipients of the giveaway are dominated by "protected groups", the enforcer will be instantly villainized. Massive fraud evolves into an institution.
Oren is ever the JD fluffer:). Ole JD, the man of multiple names, religions, and political ideologies. Here's some fraud Oren has yet to comment on-JD's Haitian pet eating lies.
Let's hope the anti-fraud escapade results in more outcomes than the DOGE fiasco. Besides, isn't the recent Catholic convert JD busy lecturing the pope to be careful speaking about theology, and brokering peace in the "new" right/MAGA Middle East war?
In a logical country, liberals would be the most aggressive against fraud because it would leave more room for other goals. It has always baffled me that there's such a blind spot among them.
Being a big fan of irony, I giggle uncontrollably reading about Don attempting to take health care and other benefits away from his base voters, while simultaneously cutting taxes on his fellow plutocrats. All while he pockets billions in corrupt crypto loot and scams the tribe with Trump mobile, gold sneakers, bibles, etc. It's truly wonderful to watch. He may be old and senile, but he knows a good scam when he sees one!
More boilerplate and ad hominems without any proof. So because you imagine that they whose guts you hate are doing all these bad things, you turn a blind eye to other fraud. Look, Karl, you are no different than those you despise. You have your slimy hand in one pocket and justify it because you think your political enemies have their hand in the other pocket. A plague on BOTH your houses. Fraud is fraud, no matter whose it is. I don't want anyone's hand in my pocket. Not yours and not theirs.
I'd suggest you bone up on the signature legislative/economic policy achievement of the "new" right. I'm all for rooting out fraud. But the revealed preference of MAGA is the BBB, which screws the working class stiffs and rewards Don's fellow rich bros. Use that google thingy and look at a few non-partisan sources, the data couldn't be more clear. It's delicious:)
I know someone who was the beneficiary of a friend's IRA. She is 80 years old, and has to take the required minimum out of the IRA every year. What she takes out, of course, is income counted when she re-applies for SNAP benefits every year, but the $150,000 in the IRA is ignored in her state, and would be ignored in 33 other states plus the District of Columbia. Granted, probably not many food stamp recipients have $150,000 in assets. But nobody with assets like this should be getting food stamps.
You don't know what other expenses that 80-year-old pays from her IRA distribution. Until you do, I'd suggest more circumspection than your comment has displayed.
I do know. She is my leftist sister. She lives in subsidized housing, provided through a similar loophole in Middleton, Wisconsin. She's a veteran, and pays very little for medical care at the VA (I'm not complaining about that -- I do the same thing -- she and I both earned that). Her utilities are included in her rent, which is limited to 1/3 of her income. Speaking of circumspection, maybe you should exercise some.
She is gaming the system and is delighted to do so. She votes Democrat to keep the gravy train rolling. She expends much energy ensuring her income never exceeds whatever the maximum to retain benefits is. No doubt, if ever her RMDs look like they will render her ineligible for "benefits," she will gladly use the charitable contribution deduction loophole so the income won't be counted. I grant you that this is an extreme case, but the broader point is that the law allows it. There's nothing illegal about this. Immoral, I think, though. What do you think?
I'd say that you're making a considerably stronger case than you started with, but there are one or two missing pieces. How much income does she have ($150,000 doesn't throw off too much) and what about prescription drugs? Look, I am claws out against fraud, however it might sound, but I am also a details guy.
Oh, and how much does she get in SNAP? I can't think that it's very much, but watch me be wrong. My beef with SNAP fraud is in other aspects, i.e. those wholly ineligible who are scamming the system to begin with; people selling their cards at a discount for cash that they use for cigs, booze, and meth; in states with bottle and can deposits, those who buy cartons of bottled water, pour it out in the parking lots and return the containers for the deposit money.
Really, where I live the latter two actually happen. The first one too, but I directly see the sale of SNAP cards and the deposit scams. And you know what? I bet there are others that I just don't know about. Your complaint is that your sister is treated too generously, not that she's scamming per se. You might be correct. Your second answer is a lot more persuasive than the first.
I don't see how buying bottled water and pouring it out and then returning the bottles for a refund of the deposit can be profitable -- although I agree that "bottle laws" are supremely stupid. My sister gets almost $300 a month from SNAP.
How about enforcing the tax code just as vigorously as Cass and Trump support looking for spending fraud? Aren’t those issues on different sides of the same coin?
The greater the magnitude of the giveaway, the more layers of bureaucrats get their hands on it. Skim some off the top? When the recipients of the giveaway are dominated by "protected groups", the enforcer will be instantly villainized. Massive fraud evolves into an institution.
Oren is ever the JD fluffer:). Ole JD, the man of multiple names, religions, and political ideologies. Here's some fraud Oren has yet to comment on-JD's Haitian pet eating lies.
Let's hope the anti-fraud escapade results in more outcomes than the DOGE fiasco. Besides, isn't the recent Catholic convert JD busy lecturing the pope to be careful speaking about theology, and brokering peace in the "new" right/MAGA Middle East war?
In a logical country, liberals would be the most aggressive against fraud because it would leave more room for other goals. It has always baffled me that there's such a blind spot among them.
Being a big fan of irony, I giggle uncontrollably reading about Don attempting to take health care and other benefits away from his base voters, while simultaneously cutting taxes on his fellow plutocrats. All while he pockets billions in corrupt crypto loot and scams the tribe with Trump mobile, gold sneakers, bibles, etc. It's truly wonderful to watch. He may be old and senile, but he knows a good scam when he sees one!
More boilerplate and ad hominems without any proof. So because you imagine that they whose guts you hate are doing all these bad things, you turn a blind eye to other fraud. Look, Karl, you are no different than those you despise. You have your slimy hand in one pocket and justify it because you think your political enemies have their hand in the other pocket. A plague on BOTH your houses. Fraud is fraud, no matter whose it is. I don't want anyone's hand in my pocket. Not yours and not theirs.
I'd suggest you bone up on the signature legislative/economic policy achievement of the "new" right. I'm all for rooting out fraud. But the revealed preference of MAGA is the BBB, which screws the working class stiffs and rewards Don's fellow rich bros. Use that google thingy and look at a few non-partisan sources, the data couldn't be more clear. It's delicious:)
It's a difference of opinion, which you call "fraud" with utterly no proof, because who needs any when you are righteous in your own mind? LOL
I hope all this is in good faith because you’re right fraud has serious consequences that even an old school liberal doesn’t want!
I know someone who was the beneficiary of a friend's IRA. She is 80 years old, and has to take the required minimum out of the IRA every year. What she takes out, of course, is income counted when she re-applies for SNAP benefits every year, but the $150,000 in the IRA is ignored in her state, and would be ignored in 33 other states plus the District of Columbia. Granted, probably not many food stamp recipients have $150,000 in assets. But nobody with assets like this should be getting food stamps.
You don't know what other expenses that 80-year-old pays from her IRA distribution. Until you do, I'd suggest more circumspection than your comment has displayed.
I do know. She is my leftist sister. She lives in subsidized housing, provided through a similar loophole in Middleton, Wisconsin. She's a veteran, and pays very little for medical care at the VA (I'm not complaining about that -- I do the same thing -- she and I both earned that). Her utilities are included in her rent, which is limited to 1/3 of her income. Speaking of circumspection, maybe you should exercise some.
You didn't disclose any of those details in your comment. You only mentioned $150,000 in assets and nothing else.
So, do you now agree that she has no business getting food stamps or heavily subsidized housing?
Maybe I should have disclosed more details in my original comment, but I wanted to keep it pithy.
She is gaming the system and is delighted to do so. She votes Democrat to keep the gravy train rolling. She expends much energy ensuring her income never exceeds whatever the maximum to retain benefits is. No doubt, if ever her RMDs look like they will render her ineligible for "benefits," she will gladly use the charitable contribution deduction loophole so the income won't be counted. I grant you that this is an extreme case, but the broader point is that the law allows it. There's nothing illegal about this. Immoral, I think, though. What do you think?
I'd say that you're making a considerably stronger case than you started with, but there are one or two missing pieces. How much income does she have ($150,000 doesn't throw off too much) and what about prescription drugs? Look, I am claws out against fraud, however it might sound, but I am also a details guy.
Oh, and how much does she get in SNAP? I can't think that it's very much, but watch me be wrong. My beef with SNAP fraud is in other aspects, i.e. those wholly ineligible who are scamming the system to begin with; people selling their cards at a discount for cash that they use for cigs, booze, and meth; in states with bottle and can deposits, those who buy cartons of bottled water, pour it out in the parking lots and return the containers for the deposit money.
Really, where I live the latter two actually happen. The first one too, but I directly see the sale of SNAP cards and the deposit scams. And you know what? I bet there are others that I just don't know about. Your complaint is that your sister is treated too generously, not that she's scamming per se. You might be correct. Your second answer is a lot more persuasive than the first.
I don't see how buying bottled water and pouring it out and then returning the bottles for a refund of the deposit can be profitable -- although I agree that "bottle laws" are supremely stupid. My sister gets almost $300 a month from SNAP.