Romney vs. Obama

[Lacius]

It's only "fraud" if you get caught and they prove it. Until you get caught and convicted, you're just another one of the 47 million people receiving food stamps. In other words, there is no way to put a percentage on the amount of actual food stamp fraud that's going on. If they're catching and actually convicting 1% of recipients, then what percentage aren't getting caught??

You do realize there is no evidence of food stamp fraud beyond the 1% cited above, yes? You're essentially arguing that because you arbitrarily think it could possibly be more that there's a food stamp fraud problem (and that it warrants cutting $134 billion from the program?). This is the voter fraud debate all over again. Despite the fact that there's virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud, you've arbitrarily decided that there actually is in-person voter fraud.

Somewhere above, when I was asked to 'provide sources,' I posted a link to a forum discussion where it was asked as a poll, did you lie to receive food stamps? 16% answered yes.

Your entire basis for this argument is a poll where 24 people said they lie in order to get food stamps. Both because of the number of people polled and the selective-sampling (it was a convenience poll where people self-selected themselves to participate), the poll you cited does not constitute as proper random sampling. That's why you don't hear about this 16% anywhere.

And that's just the ones who were willing to admit it. I also posted a link showing where US universities are openly encouraging students to apply for foodstamps regardless of their socioeconomic background (i.e. even if their parents, upon whom they are still dependents, are 'rich').

The universities did not explicitly ask for students who still receive money from rich families to apply for food stamps. And even if they had, so what? A bad recommendation from a university would not invalidate the program.

It's more likely that the majority of cases are resulting from exaggeration

I'd like to see some evidence of this, because that's a pretty bold claim.

Here's an interesting government chart showing the history of food stamp program participation going back to 1971. Check out the spike in participation numbers and cost over the last few years.

http://www.fns.usda....SNAPsummary.htm

It's almost as if there had been an economic recession.

 

[leic7]

I just did a quick google on food stamp fraud, my findings all seem to point to a fraud rate of 1%* of the overall program. Is this 1% fraud rate what you've been talking about all this time?

It's only "fraud" if you get caught and they prove it. Until you get caught and convicted, you're just another one of the 47 million people receiving food stamps. In other words, there is no way to put a percentage on the amount of actual food stamp fraud that's going on. If they're catching and actually convicting 1% of recipients, then what percentage aren't getting caught?? Somewhere above, when I was asked to 'provide sources,' I posted a link to a forum discussion where it was asked as a poll, did you lie to receive food stamps? 16% answered yes.* And that's just the ones who were willing to admit it. I also posted a link showing where US universities are openly encouraging students to apply for foodstamps regardless of their socioeconomic background (i.e. even if their parents, upon whom they are still dependents, are 'rich').


*edit: Also, I just noticed that the link you provided defines fraud as the exchange of foodstamps for cash. That's not what I've been talking about, so that 1% number, even if it were accurate (which i doubt) wouldn't apply. That's also consistent with what I was saying above, that government agencies don't put as much effort into checking whether recipients are being truthful as most citizens would think. They define fraud as illegally exchanging foodstamps already issued for cash, so that's what they are trying to catch.

And, it's not like all the 'fraud' going on is just people getting foodstamps who never would/should qualify for benefits. That's probably rather rare, and fairly easy to catch. It's more likely that the majority of cases are resulting from exaggeration - a person who does qualify for some level of food stamp benefits, but fudges their income numbers so they can get even more.

Here's an interesting government chart showing the history of food stamp program participation going back to 1971. Check out the spike in participation numbers and cost over the last few years.

http://www.fns.usda....SNAPsummary.htm

To keep things in perspective, do you understand that the military's expenditure is much larger than SNAP expenditure? You don't know what percentage of SNAP recipients cheat by fudging their numbers to get more money, do you know what percentage of the military's funding has been obtained by contractors who cheat and fudge their numbers to get more than what they deserve? If the same unknown percentage of fraud exists in both programs, the military's frauds would cost taxpayers much more than the SNAP frauds, because of the sheer size of the military's expenses: 1% fraud in defense contracts is worth quite a few times more than 1% fraud in SNAP. Therefore, it makes economical sense to pay at least as much attention to the military's spending as to SNAP spending.

I'm glad that you're concerned about the possible misuse of public money, but I find it strange that you'd choose to focus a disproportionate amount of attention on a relatively "small potato". Why is that? Meanwhile, the Department of Defense had awarded almost $400 billion of contracts over a 10 year period to companies AFTER these very companies had been caught and convicted of defrauding DOD (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=57672667-8958-44d9-936e-074de29f9be3). $400 billion was the TOTAL expenses incurred by the food program over that same period. And that's just the money given to companies with a documented history of fraud, how much more money has been given to other companies that have never been caught? Are you concerned about the honesty of these seemingly innocent contractors with clean track records, the same way you're concerned about those seemingly innocent food stamp recipients with clean records? You should be.

 

[Gahars]

Well, it looks like Obama may have God on his side after all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUDg-O93GU

 

[stomp_442]

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. I'm voting for change come November.

 

[Lacius]

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. I'm voting for change come November.

The last few years have likely been the worst few years for everyone; that's because we were in a recession. That doesn't mean the economy isn't recovering. Romney's economic plan is to give tax breaks for the rich, which is one of the weakest ways to stimulate the economy; Romney would also have to accomplish this by exploding the deficit or increasing taxes on the middle class. Obama's recovery plans actually improve the economy.

 

[KingVamp]

Welp, made my first campaign donation today. It wasn't a whole lot, but hey, it's the thought that counts.

With that alone,sadly :/, you are now supporting more than me.
Good job!

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. I'm voting for change come November.

Then didn't vote lying flip flopping Mitt Robme because he going to bring it back (aka no change) to things that cause this mess in the first place and possibly much worse.

 

[stomp_442]

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. I'm voting for change come November.

Then didn't vote lying flip flopping Mitt Robme because he going to bring it back (aka no change) to things that cause this mess in the first place
and possibly much worse.

Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. I'm voting for change come November.

The last few years have likely been the worst few years for everyone; that's because we were in a recession. That doesn't mean the economy isn't recovering. Romney's economic plan is to give tax breaks for the rich, which is one of the weakest ways to stimulate the economy; Romney would also have to accomplish this by exploding the deficit or increasing taxes on the middle class. Obama's recovery plans actually improve the economy.

I'm sorry, I don't follow pre-election television, aint nothing but a bunch of campaign promises. And you know how those go. Obama's recovery plans? Haven't seen anything yet from this guy.

 

[Lacius]

Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.

It was the policies of life-long Republicans that got us into this recession in the first place.

Obama's recovery plans? Haven't seen anything yet from this guy.

Then you might want to check out my link to the effects of Obama's stimulus.

 

[KingVamp]

Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.

Why I'm trying get a Star Wars reference out of this?

You are basically saying you want worse for yourself and voting lies even when you was giving
warnings, you do know that right?

 

[Hanafuda]

Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.

Why I'm trying get a Star Wars reference out of this?

You are basically saying you want worse for yourself and voting lies even when you was giving
warnings, you do know that right?

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

 

[Sterling]

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

Why can't you just leave gracefully? Parting shots like this are kinda immature IMO. What would you think of politicians if they acted this way in a televised debate?

 

[Hanafuda]

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

Why can't you just leave gracefully? Parting shots like this are kinda immature IMO. What would you think of politicians if they acted this way in a televised debate?

You mean like Joe Biden last week??? LOL

That wasn't a 'parting shot.' I'm just tired of trying to have a discussion when you guys are trying to have an indoctrination session. Not to mention that I got told above that I'm "probably not a racist" in a post that was supposed to be about my poor choice of words.

 

[Sterling]

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

Why can't you just leave gracefully? Parting shots like this are kinda immature IMO. What would you think of politicians if they acted this way in a televised debate?

You mean like Joe Biden last week??? LOL

That wasn't a 'parting shot.' I'm just tired of trying to have a discussion when you guys are trying to have an indoctrination session. Not to mention that I got told above that I'm "probably not a racist" in a post that was supposed to be about my poor choice of words.

Umm, I haven't taken much part in the discussions thus far, and I've agreed with you on several different things. As a person who's mostly followed the discussions, I just call it like I see it, whether people like it or not. Indoctrination accusations are a bit of a stretch. The poor choice of words accusation not so much. I also think you're missing the point of a debate. That's where two or more people present points of differing views on the same subject in order to convince other just who's more right. Indoctrination? Hardly. You're both fighting to get others to see your point of view as the most right. You can't accuse others of such things in a debate without pointing at yourself as well (since you willingly participated).

As for Biden, I think he's a putz. I don't get cable TV, nor do I care enough about the vice president to pay attention to pointless debates.

 

[Lacius]

Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.

You're basically saying, "I will not change my views no matter what evidence is presented to me," which means you've started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and aren't being objective. I would never say, "Your words have no meaning to me because I'm a life-long liberal." My political ideology is based entirely on the evidence; if I'm presented with valid opposing evidence, then my political views will change accordingly.

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

Just saying, "My eyes are open and you are wrong" isn't very substantive and does nothing to support one's views. As I mentioned already, all this accomplishes is conveying the fact that one isn't objective.

You mean like Joe Biden last week??? LOL

What Sterling was probably getting at was that your "You guys can go on telling each other how right you are" comment was a sarcastic parting shot that lacked substance. The difference between you and Joe Biden is that Joe Biden called Paul Ryan out on his lies and lack of specifics and was able to back it up. "You guys can go on telling each other how right you are" implies that we aren't actually right and we're just telling each other that we are, but that's a pretty bold statement not to support with a shred of evidence, which is why it's a parting shot.

That wasn't a 'parting shot.' I'm just tired of trying to have a discussion when you guys are trying to have an indoctrination session.

When you make a baseless claim that's also a sarcastic parting shot, like you did and Joe Biden didn't, it's difficult to respond to that other than saying "Um, no?" So in this specific instance, no, you're not trying to have a discussion; you're just trying to elicit an emotional response without providing anything of substance to respond to. You think we're just a bunch of people who are wrong but get comfort from getting on the internet and telling each other that we're actually right? Cool. Back that up.

Not to mention that I got told above that I'm "probably not a racist" in a post that was supposed to be about my poor choice of words.

Despite the fact that you compared black people supporting President Obama to gangs "tending to assemble along racial lines," I said you're probably not a racist because it seemed like just a poor choice of words with no malicious intent behind the example. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and should have said you probably are a racist.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.

 

[Lacius]

Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.

Could you give me a source that shows Obama actually assigning blame to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat?

 

[DiscostewSM]

Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.

Could you give me a source that shows Obama actually assigning blame to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat?

You know, a confirmation doesn't require having to open one's mouth, and that is what Obama did this morning in Virginia when a reporter asked if Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. If she wasn't to blame, then you'd think that he would have said so, right? A simple "no" would have sufficed, since he was talking candidly to the reporter before that question was brought up.

But you know this is going to pop up in tonight's debate, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Lacius]

You know, a confirmation doesn't require having to open one's mouth, and that is what Obama did this morning in Virginia when a reporter asked if Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. If she wasn't to blame, then you'd think that he would have said so, right? A simple "no" would have sufficed, since he was talking candidly to the reporter before that question was brought up.

But you know this is going to pop up in tonight's debate, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

It wasn't exactly a real interview, let alone an interview with the time required to talk about that kind of thing, haha:



The fact that the question was in response to Hillary Clinton saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts means it's not going to be a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Also, as you already mentioned, there's a debate tonight.

 

[KingVamp]

No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.

If his eyes are open then he would see that Obama is actually is helping this country, despite Mitt trying to cover up that fact.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Romney is nothing,but lies. Lies on lies on top of lies and even top of more lies.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Obama actually cares about this country and the people, not just 1%.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Romney is going to bring us back (possibly worse) from the state we trying to leave.

If voting for someone like Romney for his numerous on a whim lies to just get his way and not caring for the less fortunate is having his eyes open then I didn't want to see what he would do with his eyes closed.

 

[Jakob95]

I honestly doing want Puerto Rico to be a state of the U.S because then it will be weird having 51 states... I think 50 states sound better, and where are we going to fit that extra star on the flag?