Reply With Quote
Starve them until they lose the strength to riot. Worked for commies in 1921 and in the early 30s
Free?
They knowingly spent money they knew wasn't theirs. I suspect they will be penalized in some form.
Starve them until they lose the strength to riot. Worked for commies in 1921 and in the early 30s
Sarcasm. Google it.
interesting approach, but they are too important to the current overlords right now, so I doubt they will be starved. the middle class seems to be more of the target imo.
though can you imagine if those EBT cards were suddenly shut off or useless? when Leroy has to spend his drug money on food or grape soda? the rioting and looting would be tremendous. You would have to load up on ammo and defend your property Assault on Precinct 13 (1976) styles.
Soon to be on EBT cards, tbh
seems like that's where things are headed.
While in the poor people's fraud (criminaliize them all) thread, here's some wealthy corporate fraud (criminalize them all)
===
Four times in the last five years, the Pentagon's inspector general has found that Boeing Co. collected excessive or unjustified payments on U.S. defense contracts.
In the latest of four audits since 2008, the watchdog office said the Chicago company charged the Army for new helicopter parts while installing used ones.
"Boeing significantly overstated estimates" of new components needed for CH-47F Chinook helicopters and "primarily installed used parts instead" under a $4.4-billion contract awarded in 2008,
Although used parts were allowed in some cir stances, the July 16 report found that the company overcharged the U.S. Army by as much as $16.6 million by exaggerating how many new ones were required while installing refurbished equipment salvaged from old aircraft. The report also faults defense agencies and military services for lax negotiations and contract management.
"The bottom line is that using reworked parts rather than new parts increased Boeing's profit,"
The Army paid Boeing for parts "that were proposed but never installed," and "is paying for additional parts that they do not need and may not use,"
"Unfortunately, the Army does not have a cost/price analysis group, much less an experienced one,"
A 2008 audit said Boeing sought $1.9 billion in unjustified payments on military contracts under a formula designed to compensate contractors for rising costs. After negotiations, the amount was cut to $272 million, the inspector general's report said.
In June, the inspector general said the Defense Logistics Agency paid Boeing $13.7 million more than it should have for spare parts, including $2,286 apiece for an aluminum "bearing sleeve" that should have cost $10.
A May 2011 audit found about $13 million of overcharges on $23 million of orders from a Texas army depot. That report said Boeing charged $644.75 for a plastic motor gear used on Chinook helicopters, which another Pentagon agency purchased for $12.51.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-77793643/
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-15-2013 at 05:36 AM.
lol didn't read boutons' post
anyway, food stamps are ing . just hand them money for essentials, and if they abuse it then too baaad. i feel bad for kids, but giving them more money for more kids just escalates the problem.
fat people shouldn't be on disabilities.
if you have children while on welfare, you should be punished, not rewarded.
this does remind me that i need to apply for my EBT, I should qualify for $15 a month
"It's all private businesses and the Repugs' fault! Everyone would be rich if the DNC took over all businesses!"
Disappointed Kool didn't provide his first-hand experience on this matter...
Whoa whoa whoa, you forget our bet? If you can't handle your racist urges then pay me my money and you can release your inner re ism all you want. My EBT card doesn't pay for my cable bill so I could use the money anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...op-using-cash/A new study has found that paying welfare benefits via debit card, rather than cash, caused a 10 percent drop in crime.
Researchers have long noted that cash plays a critical role in street crime, due to its liquidity (it's easy to access and everyone accepts it) and anonymity (it leaves no paper trail). In poorer neighborhoods, public assistance payments used to be a significant source of circulating cash: recipients would cash their assistance checks at the bank, pocketing the money and making them attractive targets for criminals.
But starting in the 1990s that changed, as the Federal government gradually phased out paper welfare checks in favor of electronic debit cards (the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) program). Along with a team of researchers, Richard Wright of the University of Missouri studied the effects of this change in his home state and found that it was directly responsible for a hefty 10 percent drop in the overall crime rate there.
The graphic below looks at crime trends in Missouri before and after the switch from cash to debit cards, for all crimes and broken down by individual crimes. In most crime categories the change before and after the switch is striking - upward trends in assault, burglary, car theft and robbery are completely reversed.
The authors ran some more robust regression analysis and found that "burglary, assault, and larceny decreased by 7.9 percent, 12.5 percent, and 9.6 percent, respectively." To double-check their work, they looked at arrest rates and found that corresponding drops in arrest rates supported their findings. They also looked at the incidence of rape, which showed little change pre- and post-EBT switch. Because rape is "typically unrelated immediate acquisition of cash," this didn't come as a surprise.
How Big Banks Are Cashing In On Food Stamps
Banks reap hefty profits helping governments make payments to individuals, business that only got better when agencies switch from making payments on paper—checks and vouchers—to electronic benefits transfer (EBT) cards.
Banks hold contracts with federal, state, and municipal agencies to provide EBT cards and services, collect interest on federal reserve money held for government programs (though not on SNAP funds), charge transaction fees for merchant use of bank technology and infrastructure, and levy penalties on users for EBT card loss, out-of-network use, and balance inquiries. Banks make money distributing government benefits if the economy is bad, because more people sign up for assistance; they make money if the economy is good, because rising interest rates mean more profit on the money they hold to distribute to beneficiaries.
Distributing government benefits is a lucrative industry. According to theGovernment Accountability Ins ute, J.P. Morgan Chase, which currently controls EBT contracts in 21 states, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, made more than half a billion dollars between 2004 and 2012 providing government benefits to U.S. citizens. In New York alone, J.P. Morgan Electronic Financial Services (EFS) holds a nine-year, $177 million EBT services contract with the State Office of Temporary and Disability Services (OTDA). New York currently pays $0.95 per month for each its 1.7 million SNAP cases. In addition, J.P. Morgan EFS collects penalties and fees from benefit recipients: $5 to replace a lost EBT card, $0.40 for each balance inquiry, $0.50 each time their cards are declined for insufficient funds, and $1.50 per withdrawal if they use ATMs to get cash more than once a month. While information about profit margins on EBT contracts is neither collected at the national level nor released by banks, EBT is a significant growth area for big banks.
the SNAP fraud provisions will increase the ability of state and federal agencies to track who bought what food, where, and for how much. A vast amount of information on the purchases of millions of U.S. citizens will be collected by state agencies and private en ies, stored by the USDA, and data-mined for patterns of EBT use that indicate fraud.
Why will this intensified focus on fraud work out so well for banks? First, banks innovate and control the most cutting-edge technologies that detect and prevent fraud in electronic funds transfer. The financial sector employs armies of computer programmers, IT specialists, and software engineers, and banks hold dozens of patents on biometric technology, data-mining systems, and payment tracking software. State and federal agencies can develop fraud-fighting code and procedures themselves, but many lack sufficient capacity and choose instead to contract with banks. Florida, for example, piloted an eight-month EBT abuse detection project in 2012 that was staffed by both J.P. Morgan and state employees, as Peter Schweizer reported in The Daily Beast. The anti-fraud provisions of the farm bill, thus, provide a significant opportunity for more, and more lucrative, contracts for banks.
http://prospect.org/article/how-big-banks-are-cashing-food-stamps
Who doubts the fraudulent, criminal, wealth-sucking financial sector paid Congressmen to write bank revenues into the Farm Bill?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
