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?
Trump allowed upwards $250 billion in fraud in 2020 because he wanted the economy turbocharged in order to help him win reelection. That fraud is what led to the violent crime wave and the fentanyl OD spike.
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:)
We can see the deficit ratio increase in 2018 because of the initial round of Trump Tax Cuts and this time the deficit ratio looks even worse! I will support whatever works to decrease the deficit and so far Democrat policies reduce the deficit ratio while Republican policies increase it.
Jim, even Oren criticized the BBB for god's sake:) I didn't say the BBB was fraud, quite the opposite (though his corrupt crypto capers clearly count). The BBB is perfectly legal. It's also devastating since it reveals Don's priorities so plainly. On top of screwing his loyal base and rewarding his rich bro buds, it contained massive budget deficits. Maybe he can break the all time debt record he set in his first term? Take five minutes and look up a few of the non-partisan studies on winners and losers, the data doesn't lie.
I suspect the anti-fraud effort serves the same purpose as DOGE. They're temporary, symbolic gestures that produce little but conveniently provide cover for the permanent and far more consequential changes the BBB has enshrined in law.
Meanwhile, let's all wish JD the best of luck in his selective quest to root out fraud, any money saved can be diverted to more tax cuts for George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and Don's crypto cronies.
You do realize we have access to data?? The debt decreased in 2022 in large part because the Child Tax Credit expansion increased family spending in a responsible and sustainable manner…and that’s why Republicans freaked out about inflation because Biden’s policies worked!
Fifty years ago, most Liberals would at least agree with your logic, even though the common pretense of egalitarianism and charity has always been a deflection from the obvious behavior of serving self-interest.
Liberals were universally supportive of organized labor, for instance, while in principle, condemning union boss corruption and misuse of membership dues. That misuse was fraudulent, and the logic scaled across multiple domains as a matter of principle.
The resistance against meaningful accountability for fraud, is fundamentally illiberal.
When we follow the money, the self-interests reveal themselves, and the "blind spot" reveals itself as deflection and denial of that which serves self-interest.
If it's the advocacy and voting patterns that you find mystifying, try viewing the behaviors within a different framework, which requires different priors. One of those priors, is how emotional states select, evolutionarily. We view emotion as antithetical to cognition and application of logic, when the fact is that they serve specific purposes.
Ideological Liberalism is, currently, nearly extinct. The label and identity, however, is alive and well.
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.
Our entire system of government programs is antiquated. Chock a block full of special interests and designed for an age before the silicon chip. We can go to an auto dealer and walk out with a $50,000 dollar car a couple hours later. I don't see why our various programs of medicaid, food stamps, section 8, and all the rest can't also be run with little to no fraud.
Information at government agencies should be easily cross checked. We purposefully make things hard for ourselves allowing fraud through a wide open door.
At the same time we defund the cops on the beat. The cops being the IRS and the SEC. We ignore tax and corporate fraud. The SEC and ICE are doing the same thing in that they are enforcing the law.
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?
I will note that the judicial insurrectionists are already undermining the anti-fraud effort. Until we figure out a way to deal with that, policy is pretty useless.
Are they beating cops with confederate flagpoles like Don’s insurrectionists, the insurrectionists he pardoned en masse? Remember JD assuring us Don would never pardon the violent ones? But, oops, even the felonious thugs convicted of seditious conspiracy slipped the noose. Of course, frugal Don recently sought to pay them off with our tax dollars…
Now they’re back on the streets committing more crimes-including several who’ve committed sex crimes against children.
Let’s all say thanks that Mike Pence refused to do what JD dutifully said he would have done if faced with the same situation on January 6th.
Don set the record for debt accumulation in his first term, and is on pace to break it in his second. He’s gutted the white collar crime units at DOJ, and is openly pocketing massive amounts of corrupt crypto loot. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a whole lotta anti-fraud action Richard:)
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.
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.
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?
An IRA that size probably pays her about $500 a month. Not huge money, but something. Do you think she should be forced to cash out the IRA and live off the 150k until it's gone? Living very cheaply, it would still be gone in less than 5 years, and then she'd need even more assistance because she'd no longer be getting $500 a month from the IRA. You're acting like she won the lottery.
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?
Trump allowed upwards $250 billion in fraud in 2020 because he wanted the economy turbocharged in order to help him win reelection. That fraud is what led to the violent crime wave and the fentanyl OD spike.
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
We can see the deficit ratio increase in 2018 because of the initial round of Trump Tax Cuts and this time the deficit ratio looks even worse! I will support whatever works to decrease the deficit and so far Democrat policies reduce the deficit ratio while Republican policies increase it.
Jim, even Oren criticized the BBB for god's sake:) I didn't say the BBB was fraud, quite the opposite (though his corrupt crypto capers clearly count). The BBB is perfectly legal. It's also devastating since it reveals Don's priorities so plainly. On top of screwing his loyal base and rewarding his rich bro buds, it contained massive budget deficits. Maybe he can break the all time debt record he set in his first term? Take five minutes and look up a few of the non-partisan studies on winners and losers, the data doesn't lie.
I suspect the anti-fraud effort serves the same purpose as DOGE. They're temporary, symbolic gestures that produce little but conveniently provide cover for the permanent and far more consequential changes the BBB has enshrined in law.
Meanwhile, let's all wish JD the best of luck in his selective quest to root out fraud, any money saved can be diverted to more tax cuts for George Soros, Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and Don's crypto cronies.
You do realize we have access to data?? The debt decreased in 2022 in large part because the Child Tax Credit expansion increased family spending in a responsible and sustainable manner…and that’s why Republicans freaked out about inflation because Biden’s policies worked!
There are very few Liberals remaining, Jim.
Fifty years ago, most Liberals would at least agree with your logic, even though the common pretense of egalitarianism and charity has always been a deflection from the obvious behavior of serving self-interest.
Liberals were universally supportive of organized labor, for instance, while in principle, condemning union boss corruption and misuse of membership dues. That misuse was fraudulent, and the logic scaled across multiple domains as a matter of principle.
The resistance against meaningful accountability for fraud, is fundamentally illiberal.
When we follow the money, the self-interests reveal themselves, and the "blind spot" reveals itself as deflection and denial of that which serves self-interest.
If it's the advocacy and voting patterns that you find mystifying, try viewing the behaviors within a different framework, which requires different priors. One of those priors, is how emotional states select, evolutionarily. We view emotion as antithetical to cognition and application of logic, when the fact is that they serve specific purposes.
Ideological Liberalism is, currently, nearly extinct. The label and identity, however, is alive and well.
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.
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!
Our entire system of government programs is antiquated. Chock a block full of special interests and designed for an age before the silicon chip. We can go to an auto dealer and walk out with a $50,000 dollar car a couple hours later. I don't see why our various programs of medicaid, food stamps, section 8, and all the rest can't also be run with little to no fraud.
Information at government agencies should be easily cross checked. We purposefully make things hard for ourselves allowing fraud through a wide open door.
At the same time we defund the cops on the beat. The cops being the IRS and the SEC. We ignore tax and corporate fraud. The SEC and ICE are doing the same thing in that they are enforcing the law.
Theodore Lowi identified this problem in 1969 and we have been kicking the can down the road ever since.
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?
Great reading of the need to protect our safety net from fraud - my thanks!
I will note that the judicial insurrectionists are already undermining the anti-fraud effort. Until we figure out a way to deal with that, policy is pretty useless.
Are they beating cops with confederate flagpoles like Don’s insurrectionists, the insurrectionists he pardoned en masse? Remember JD assuring us Don would never pardon the violent ones? But, oops, even the felonious thugs convicted of seditious conspiracy slipped the noose. Of course, frugal Don recently sought to pay them off with our tax dollars…
Now they’re back on the streets committing more crimes-including several who’ve committed sex crimes against children.
Let’s all say thanks that Mike Pence refused to do what JD dutifully said he would have done if faced with the same situation on January 6th.
Don set the record for debt accumulation in his first term, and is on pace to break it in his second. He’s gutted the white collar crime units at DOJ, and is openly pocketing massive amounts of corrupt crypto loot. I wouldn’t hold my breath for a whole lotta anti-fraud action Richard:)
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?
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.
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?
An IRA that size probably pays her about $500 a month. Not huge money, but something. Do you think she should be forced to cash out the IRA and live off the 150k until it's gone? Living very cheaply, it would still be gone in less than 5 years, and then she'd need even more assistance because she'd no longer be getting $500 a month from the IRA. You're acting like she won the lottery.
No, but she certainly can afford to buy the food she needs without government assistance (she gets Social Security, too).