The Republican Thread

[Balta1701]

Stores shouldn't be responsible for customers.

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?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

You don't go through anything close to what Duke posed and what you said were good ideas. Don't forget your monthly drug test for the tax subsidies, too!

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

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?

Edited March 4, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

That's already how SNAP works. You can also receive cash Link benefits because not everything a person needs is sold at a retail store. Like rent, bills, tuition, etc.

 

You liberals would love that because you can then control a persons diet,

lol nope

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

That already happens with alcohol, tobacco and any other restricted item (drugs, guns, bunch of other stuff)

[Jenksismyhero]

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?

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Balta1701]

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.

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?

[StrangeSox]

I already have that right now - Balta cited the link for filing a complaint.

 

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 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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

[StrangeSox]

Second Q: Is there anything that actually compels a grocery store to accept WIC funds?

 

Fiduciary duty?

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Businesses can make more money selling booze and cigarettes to minors, too.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[Balta1701]

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.

So the store is not compelled to accept WIC cards, they do so in order to get the extra business...but we can't expect them to enforce the rules of the program?

 

That's why I asked. If they were compelled as a consequence of being in operation to accept the cards, I might wonder whether it's a substantial cost to the business, but if they're able to decide whether to accept the cards...then they've decided it's worth their efforts to develop fraud protection, same as they would for any other payment method they're accepting.

 

And if you have a counterfeit check/bill problem, you report it to the state and the state decides what level of resource to put into the problem. 5 different counterfeit $20 bills/$20 checks a month from 1 store is a strong suggestion that you have a counterfeiting operation active in the area.

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

Mostly because Duke's proposal is repugnant and I'd like to see you explicitly repudiate it.

 

I don't know the current fraud rate. It's more than zero, and that's enough for me.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Increased social stigmatization, increased costs, increased case loads, increased bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, false-positives that keep aid from needy people.

[Balta1701]

So even from a simply pragmatic standpoint, you'd need to do a cost-benefit analysis.

One wonderful bit of fun...it costs money to do any sort of security...so if all you care about is achieving a 10% across the board spending cut from the spending line...and you do so in the completely foolish way...you have to cut the amount you spend on that security by 10% as well.

 

It's just like cutting funds from the IRS enforcement. The end result winds up being more fraud, but we have to cut the total amount of spending, because spending is always bad!

[southsider2k5]

 

Increased social stigmatization, increased costs, increased case loads, increased bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, false-positives that keep aid from needy people.

 

Sounds like Obama's plans for dealing with the problem of the rich.

[StrangeSox]

One wonderful bit of fun...it costs money to do any sort of security...so if all you care about is achieving a 10% across the board spending cut from the spending line...and you do so in the completely foolish way...you have to cut the amount you spend on that security by 10% as well.

 

It's just like cutting funds from the IRS enforcement. The end result winds up being more fraud, but we have to cut the total amount of spending, because spending is always bad!

 

All IRS furloughs are delayed until after April 15th!

[StrangeSox]

Sounds like Obama's plans for dealing with the problem of the rich.

 

Those poor, put-upon rich people. How's the stock market doing today under Arch-Marxist Comrade Chairman Barack?

[southsider2k5]

Those poor, put-upon rich people. How's the stock market doing today under Arch-Marxist Comrade Chairman Barack?

 

If only he could destroy those evil Congressional Republicans and finish the job.

[EvilMonkey]

Mostly because Duke's proposal is repugnant and I'd like to see you explicitly repudiate it.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Increased social stigmatization, increased costs, increased case loads, increased bureaucracy, invasion of privacy, false-positives that keep aid from needy people.

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.

[StrangeSox]

Finish the job of the top 1% capturing 121% of all income gains since 2008? That diabolical, rich-hating bastard!

 

Or is having all the money not enough, they need to be praised and worshiped too?

[EvilMonkey]

That's already how SNAP works. You can also receive cash Link benefits because not everything a person needs is sold at a retail store. Like rent, bills, tuition, etc.

 

 

lol nope

No, you are wrong. SNAP limits a few things that you can't buy, but it doesn't say you can't buy junkfood, candy or soda. I think he was hinting that you should only be able to buy meat, potatoes, veggies, bread, etc with the card. Have an approved list of items that can be bought with it, and that is it.

[StrangeSox]

So, SOME fraud is OK with you, because you can't stop all fraud,

 

Pragmatically? Of course. You could turn TANF into a $10T/year operation and station an armed enforcement officer at every register in every store in the country and you'd still have some fraud.

 

and requiring all these welfare recipients to jump thru all sorts of legal hoops to justify their need for aid is just wrong.

 

The need is already justified. Duke's proposal is simply to allow him to shame those in need for being in need.

 

Yet, you have no problem with trying to eliminate guns,

 

no

 

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.

 

I believe we have very loose and difficult-to-actually-enforce gun laws that results in easy access to firearms for anyone who wants them, "good" guys and "bad" guys alike. I think tighter restrictions will cut down on the loss of life in this country and that these are worth the extra expense. I'm not trying to cut down on some "gun fraud" that results in government waste, so the cost-benefit math changes there.

 

 

OK, got it.