patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Maybe if they did, they would lose their voting block of people..

Poor people don't vote. Less than I in 10 in poverty show up, vs 8 in 10 among white collar professionals.

Liberals win elections from women, minorities, and the well educated. Poor people are barely relevant in elections, unless they're old, white, and religious.

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

pdh says

AverageBear says

Why do liberals dismiss the bad elements in human behavior when it comes to welfare? Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

Because God hates poor, weak people.

AverageBear says

Why are they afraid of trying to root out waste?

zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.

Witchhunts on minorities is just for political points, meanwhile:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDEFX

Because angrybear it's penny ante bullshit.

Reminds me of the various efforts to enact drug testing for welfare recipients. Which end up spending more on the drug testing than it "saves" as they find out welfare recipients statistically are less drug addicted than general population.

And is the goal to fix the accounting, or justify cutting the welfare budget?

If you want to cut waste do you go after the big budget items, or do you shave pennies off your lunch budget?

Its all code language. They believe poor people are poor because they're inferior (especially if they are a different race). They'd be more than happy yo kill or imprison everybody who is poor.

Vicente says

Because angrybear it's penny ante bullshit.

Reminds me of the various efforts to enact drug testing for welfare
recipients. Which end up spending more on the drug testing than it "saves" as
they find out welfare recipients statistically are less drug addicted than
general population.

And is the goal to fix the accounting, or justify cutting the welfare
budget?

If you want to cut waste do you go after the big budget items, or do you
shave pennies off your lunch budget?

-----------------------------------------
Penny-ante bullshit indeed!

You're right Vic, what's $28 Billion anyway. If you think $28B is 'penny ante' bullshit, I'd be happy to take your first $28Billion off your hands.

What the fuck is wrong w/ demanding that our gov't actually give a shit, when it comes to pissing away the taxes that it takes away from us here in Massachusetts?

That useless fuck of a govenor here in Mass, has proposed a state budget that is 25% larger than in 2009. he's telling me he's going to raise the gas tax, and a host of other taxes. Excuuuse me, but I'd like a little credibility in my state gov't, where it actually WANTS to look out for the people it supposedly works for. Where it actually may want to do it's god-damn job actually watch where the tax dollars go. I'm all for helping out the needy, but when Deval's minions doesn't know were the fuck the $$ is going, they finally get fired, just like this clown in the link below. Do you want more links and proof that this one-party state should look for more waste? I'm sure it's out there. But then again, this would interfere w/ the constant campaign for votes.... PFFT! Oh, an BTW, calling me a heartless prick doesn't win you the argument. It confirms your delusion.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/welfare_boss_resigns_wake_report

....."The state’s embattled welfare chief was forced to step down yesterday in the wake of a shocking internal report that found that a staggering 47,000 families receiving taxpayer-funded benefits are unaccounted for — and nearly $30 million in food stamp money went to recipients who were not eligible.

The shocking report, released to the Herald last night, found that the Department of Transitional Assistance has lost track of 47,087 households on welfare — or one out of 10 of the total 478,000 who received DTA mailings.

The welfare department also admitted that it overpaid federal food stamp recipients by a whopping $27.8 million since 2010......"

Welfare is keeping the workers from the farms: hence the need for "agricultural worker programs" where we import Mexicans to do the jobs that Americans will not do. If you're living in some city and can't feed yourself, there should be an office where you can sign up to get transportation to a farm where they will work and feed you and your kids.
C'mon! The plantation needs its workers back!

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

There is little incentive to better yourself when you can net more from welfare than working.

-----------------------------------------------
I agree. Those that need help (food, shelter, clothing. retraining) should get all of those things. They should NOT BE GETTING A FRICKEN' EBT CREDIT CARD (AKA 'CASH') to spend tax payers $$ as they see fit (nail salons, booze, hookers, strip joints, bail)....

Apparently, most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH. They should be entitled to food/shelter/clothing/training that they should some how 'show up' and confirm their identity, and intentions. It's been proven that the democrat-run state of Mass has NO INTENTION whatsoever of confirming who is getting EBT $$, where it's going, and doesn't care how it's being spent...

Bellingham Bill says

zero tolerance is generally counterproductive if not asinine.

-------------------------------------
When did i ever mention 'zero tolerance'?? What's asinine is giving people on welfare CASH to do whatever they want with it. What they should be given is food/clothing/shelter/retraining. Make them show up for it, confirm their identity for it. Give them enough to get back on their feet, but not too much to enjoy or sustain a free/easy lifestyle. (Obama's Antie Zetiuni comes to mind)....An EBT card isn't needed for these things.

AverageBear says

most very liberal folk can't accept the fact that these people that need help, shouldn't be entitled to CASH.

Fine. I think YOU shouldn't be entitled to CASH either. Let's have someone else determine what you NEED. You think you need money for soy-based infant formula? No, what you need is Cheerios and milk. I don't care that your whole family is lactose-intolerant, that's what you're getting!

Plain and simple cash is a lot simpler to distribute, than managing inventories of surplus cheese and butter or whatever. Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone
abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating
them? Generalities are fun.

---------------------------------------------------------------
PDH, why do you pull shit out of thin air, and accuse me of things i never said. When did I ever say that I or conservatives ever wanted to get rid of social programs? I'm talking about my democrat-run state refusing to acknowledge and fix welfare fraud and waste. You counter w/ generalities. Nice try.

Vicente says

Get over it, this argument was settled a long time ago and even staunchly
Republican administrations realized it was more EFFICIENT.

------------------------------------------
HAHAHAAA!!!! "Efficient" being used to describe a gov't social program. HAHAHAAA!! That's fuckin' priceless. ooh boy, you made my day.

Yeah, let's continue to 'efficiently' give our tax dollars to fuckin' idiots (oh, my bad, the 'victims' of society that don't know better') blow $200 at a liquor store on Petrone, or take that EBT card, get cash for the next 8-ball... Efficiency indeed! Yes, this argument is settled. Everything is perfectly fine. No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

The Professor says

I grew up on welfare. I did not even know we were poor.

So the system works.

AverageBear says

No need to CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

We have changed the system for you frigging whiners to the tune of that there $28 Billiion.

Going back to Reagan, who turned the mentally ill out on the street to save a few bucks, and Clinton, with his Welfare to Work government employment program, we have done nothing to make the system better, just more costly.

Hookers, and liquor? No, the vast majority of these people are barely surviving.

The reason we have waste is because the system is so complicated that, yes, really bad people can play it.

The Professor says

Instead of giving money to people who can't handle money why don't we create soup kitchens to feed, dormitories to house, and clinics to treat the poor?

Yeah, let's set up a series of government agencies to do all of those things, shelter, food, and medical.

The problem there is the cost. It would also take away profits from land lords, McDonalds, and God forbid, the Medical Industry.

Welfare works, and could stand to cut the budget on oversight so that more money can reach the poor.

pdh says

Why do conservatives want to get rid of social programs the minute someone abuses them? Why are they afraid of trying to fix them instead of eliminating them? Generalities are fun.

Most conservatives hold to an ideology that believes that social programs are bad, without exception. They do not care if they are efficient, if they help the people they are meant to help, if other human beings will suffer or even die without them, etc. What matters is that their ideology must be upheld at all costs. Too much reliance on any ideology is inherently irrational, and unfortunately idealogues cling tighter and tighter to their ideology whenever it's challenged in serious debate.

AverageBear says

Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow reform to uncover waste.

Bull-fucking-shit. I am the most liberal person on Patrick.net. I am all for uncovering and prosecuting welfare fraud. Although I do suspect that banking fraud costs us taxpayers about a thousand times as much. The Federal Reserve lent big banks $16 trillion at 0% so those banks could lend money to our government and collect interest off of it. That's a $16 trillion fraud right there. Welfare fraud is small potatoes compared to that.

However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen. So much for your theory that liberals approve of welfare fraud or tacitly accept it. Perhaps you are confusing liberal with leftist or socialist. Totally different things.

Liberals believe in liberty, hence the term "liberal". We believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they want to as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others. We don't believe in victimless crimes because by definition, if there is no victim, there is no crime. That's what separates liberals from their opposites, fascists.

If you need further clarification, I can go on.

The Professor says

One of the requirements for welfare is that you can't work.

Those days are long past with the Welfare to Work program, insisted on by Republicans, and signed by Bill Clinton. It adds cost to Welfare.

It's another cog in the wheel to appease whiners who insist welfare is riddled with fraud.

The truth is Welfare is a good system. What you are saying is that the people on Welfare are so stupid they would rather spend the money they get on hookers, and booze, than food, and their children.

You want repsonsibility? Give people money to do what they want. You want a nanny state, set up one agency, and another, and another, and a watch dog group to be sure that money is spent they way you say it should.

What AverageBear wants is more government to do his, or her bidding.

Poverty has gotten to be a much bigger issue than when we were kids. Look at the Census. We need more money pumped into poverty, and less into government agencies that over see it.

You want to get rid of waste? Let's talk about oil, transportation, sugar, chocolate, farming, autos, housing, and the all powerful medical industry.

Oops, that would be for everybody.

i repeat post Average bear delete; they don’t call afganistan the graveyard of empires for nothing! though i can’t understand why ABear would delete such a comment!

dublin hillz says

You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.

AverageBear says

CHANGE A FUCKIN' THING. NOTHING TO LOOK AT. NOTHING TO SEE HERE SUCKERS, er, TAXPAYERS.

Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor. On the other hand any fraud in conservo-favored areas is just a "few bad apples".

The Professor says

Dormitories, kitchens, and clincs paid for by eliminating section 8, food stamps, and medical insurance.

I used to live right next to one of the "industrial scale" attempts to end poverty that way. It was a New Deal effort, the first large public housing effort and it was named Techwood Homes. The problem with cramming a bunch of marginal people together in cheapest-possible housing, is you breed a subculture. The kids start to see the only better-off people they know are drug dealers, and things spiral down over decades. Eventually they bulldozed it and had better success after rebuilding the remaining units nicer and lower density and scattering poor people more in the community. Sorry it sounds good but it didn't work.

The Professor says

What I said was there is no incentive to work if someone sends you a check every month for NOT working.

and what I said is they don't send you a check for not working, any more. We have Welfare to Work which, to me is a fiasco.

I've worked with Welfare to Work as an employer, and no longer consider our Employment Security Department as a resource for labor. The people in the system are a mixed bag of Unemployment Benefits, and Welfare to Work.

It is ridiculous to take people who are questionable at the ability to cope, and try to fit them into a work enviorment.

It would be better just to give them money, and work on skill sets, rather than forcing employers to take on the social problems that go along with a segment of our society.

If we could get to full employment that would be different, but we can't. That is a discussion for another time, but the fact is some people don't have the social skill set to be working.

coriacci1 says

i repeat post Average bear delete; they don’t call afganistan the graveyard
of empires for nothing! though i can’t understand why ABear would delete such a
comment!

dublin hillz
says

You would think that our government could have anticipated this considering
that that's what american did to the soviets back in 1980's - get them caught up
to afghanistan so that they would go broke, collapse and implode.

---------------------------------------------------------
Coriacchi,

Although your comments about Afghanistan sound good on the surface, this comment has less than no worth on my thread. My thread's topic is about my state's refusal to acknowledge EBT waste and fraud. If you feel that strongly about Afghanistan, knock 'yerself out and start your own thread.... Get out of your 'WHHAAAA-mbulance', and stop crying that I deleted your post that has NOTHING to do with my topic. I offer some options:

- Don't reply to my thread
- Ignore me and my threads
- Start your own thread on whatever makes your socks go up and down.

As of now, Patrick has given a thread's owner the ability to delete comments. I exercised that feature. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

I'll wait a few days so you get to read this before I delete it again. (if I remember or care)...

Sorry, repeat comment

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/24/local/la-me-welfare-casinos-20100624

Welfare aid cards valid at casinos

SACRAMENTO — California welfare recipients are able to use state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash on gaming floors in more than half of the casinos in the state, a Los Angeles Times review of records found.

The cards, provided by the Department of Social Services to help recipients feed and clothe their families, work in automated teller machines at 32 of 58 tribal casinos and 47 of 90 state-licensed poker rooms, the review found.

Dan8267 says

Liberals here in Mass REFUSE to acknowledge welfare fraud, REFUSE to allow
reform to uncover waste.

Dan8267 says

However, I am still for prosecuting welfare fraud. And I have never said
anything remotely close to suggesting that such fraud does not happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan, you are right. I never said YOU didn't acknowledge welfare fraud, because you aren't living in Mass... I'm glad you are for prosecuting welfare fraud; you'd have plenty of people to educate here in Mass.

Vicente says

Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor.

You're right Vicente - poverty is regarded almost like a seditious act to a lot of the $ worshipers I know.

Vicente says

Yeah get back to me when your rage results in real cutbacks to the MIC, which
has more fraud at higher price tags. Or agricultural subsidies. Or.... why
bother? Conservo-rage is reserved for poor people, who are despicable and
untrustworthy and GUILTY UNTIL PROVED INNOCENT for being poor.

----------------------------------
Or....change the subject, by expanding the argument beyond the scope I presented: ie, my liberally-run state gov't refusing to acknowledge EBT waste/fraud. Between you and Corriacci, you are shouting at your rice-crispies about Afghanistan and agricultural subsidies because why??...

I'm sure projecting your "Conservo-Rage" is a masturbatory habit of yours, but it reeeealy doesn't address the argument of my state wanting to deal w/ EBT fraud. Taking my parochial argument w/ nebulous nation-wide accusations may make you feel good, but doesn't really add to the discussion of why democrats in my state are OK w/ EBT $$ going to lap dances out of state in Providence. Becuase this is what's happening. Many on this site accuse me of wanting to eliminate welfare (not true), hate poor people (not true). I'm just asking for common sense in my state gov't, and I get Afghanistan, agricultural subsidies. Is this all you got? Whatever. "A" for effort, though.

AverageBear says

I'm just asking for common sense in my state gov't,

You got it with over sight. Finding ATMs that take EBT cards is pretty easy.

The EBT card is not my favorite way to run Welfare, and is prone to abuse. However Prosecuting welfare fraud is a lost cause. Many people in the welfare system look at jail time as another resource.

We could also continue to expand on our jail system, which is over crowded, and costly.

There is no difference between handing out a check to be cashed, then the money used for hookers, and booze, or as you say they use the EBT card at an ATM.

What we should do is take the $60K per year we spend on over sight per Welfare reciepient, and spend it on education, or collective purchasing of food, or shelter.

My first wife is a great gal who is a grant writer. She put together a collective in a rural area for seniors. She taught them how to make bulk purchases of staples, and negotiate better housing.

Long story short her project is still there thirty years later, and many of the seniors had more money to spend on hookers, and booze through better money management.

I kind of also resent this idea of telling people on Welfare how to spend the money. It is a choice that some people are very unable to make, or control.

AverageBear says

I'm sure projecting your "Conservo-Rage" is a masturbatory habit of yours

Hey I'm not the one starting OUTRAGE THREADS over penny-ante fraud.

You fail to recognize this is small potatoes. When we talk about righting the wrongs of the world, do we go after the lunch money or the BAG OF HUNDREDS?

Vicente says

Hey I'm not the one starting OUTRAGE THREADS over penny-ante fraud.

You fail to recognize this is small potatoes. When we talk about righting the
wrongs of the world, do we go after the lunch money or the BAG OF HUNDREDS?

---------------------------------------
Vic, that's your problem. We AREN'T talking about the 'wrongs of the world'; we are talking about the 'wrongs of my state'. Penny-ante is relative, till you get to the state level; then you realize that we aren't talking about chump change. I don't accept the premise of your argument that I'm bitching about a small amount of wasted $$. You casually dismiss the whole crux of this thread, it's title, and my argument. And if your only excuse of an argument is "It's only a small amount of $$', and not even argue what my democrat-run state is doing, then your argument is piss poor....

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of examples say no.

So if you had to pick one thing would it be:
1) Waste
2) Fraud
3) Spending

David Losh says

You got it with over sight. Finding ATMs that take EBT cards is pretty easy.

The EBT card is not my favorite way to run Welfare, and is prone to abuse.
However Prosecuting welfare fraud is a lost cause.

--------------------------------
Gee Dave, 'prone to abuse'?? Ya think?

This is where you are wrong. Why can't anyone think beyond giving welfare recipients cash?? It's the most asinine thing our society can do, and folks like Kevin and Vicente are A-OK w/ this epic-failure of a solution.

I've got a novel idea. Instead of giving these folks EBT credit cards (ie, cash), let's do the following...

- 4 times a year, have each welfare recipient come down to the local welfare office, and prove/confirm name/SS#/address. First visit, we take their picture, and put it on a super market gift card that gets replenished each week or month. Think of it as a 'license to shop' (for shit you actually need, not want....) This fixes a few things. 1) it removes the small (but growing) illegal immigrants from getting any benefits (think of Obama's Aunti Zetuni)..... 2) it removes fraud from those double-dipping in 2 or more states. 3) it confirms an actual # of recipients that are receiving benefits; Something the democrats in Mass have no fuckin' clue on how to accomplish. 4) It prevents (or at least attempts) folks from selling the card to someone else in order to get $$ for drugs/booze/nail salons.

- Instead of giving out EBT credit cards, how about we give out gift cards to the local super-market that doesn't sell booze. Here in Mass, super markets don't sell liquor. You do have the rare BJ's that sells liquor, so we can remove them from this excersize. But welfare recipients will get a gift card to a Star Market, Roche Bros, Shaws, Market Basket. We use the address in the above bullet to confirm that the store's gift card is in their neighborhood.

- If you move, you have 4 opportunities a year to update the state on where you live.

I even have something more to add. We can use this card as an actual form of ID for voting, or a legit, complimentary form of state identification. You wanna vote? Great! We kill two birds w/ one stone. We (the taxpayers), pay for your card that you may (or may not) need to vote. The card will also get you your food. Liberals can't complain about 'wasting' money to confirm welfare recpient #'s, because we are, at the same time, 'getting the vote out'.....

BOOM. Problem solved. No welfare recpient is denied their doritos/pepsi/RingDings/steak/shrimp. They can buy diapers, cheese, formula, whatever the store sells. No inefficient state-run food depots.... No tax payer $$ wasted on lap dances down at the Foxy Lady in Providence, or on bail, or on cocaine, or gambling at Foxwoods in CT ...

Instead we have liberals on Patrick, that instead of actually THINKING of a solution, will actually try and defend this piss-poor status quo failure, and resort to name-calling, false accusations of me hating the poor. NNNIIIIIIICEEEEE!

Vicente says

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of
examples say no.

------------------------
Vic, nope. Never said that, nor do I necesarily believe it.

Vicente says

You think a non democrat state spend less on social programs? Plenty of examples say no.

So if you had to pick one thing would it be:

1) Waste

2) Fraud

3) Spending

If govt regulations like Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is good enough for Corporations it should be good for Govt work as well.

AverageBear says

this epic-failure of a solution.

The EBT will be used to abuse Welfare receipients, for all the reasons you are suggesting.

Use it as ID? Come into the office four times a year? Have your picture taken?

As you have discovered the EBT has already tracked the abuse you are so outraged about. What more do you want?

How much more nanny State are you demanding, because your State already spends $3 for every $1 spent on Welfare policing it.

I don't know how many different ways to say that your State spends more on over sight of Welfare than on giving money to the poor.

How much is enough? Should we spend another $60 Billion on goverment agencies? How about if we just build more jails?

There's real crime in the world that we can't control, and you want to spend more resources policing the poor.

thomaswong.1986 says

If govt regulations like Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002 is good enough for Corporations it should be good for Govt work as well.

Sarbanes-Oxley is actually a poor analog.

It's only applied to public companies, so you go after the BIG FISH not the small fry. Bear's thread is all about the small-timer little fish.

It costs money to do a bunch of compliance accounting, which nobody pays much attention to, until companies get caught red-hot-handed. Certainly it never really penetrates to the small-time investors who are supposed to be ENLIGHTENED by access to all this enforced honesty. But when it blows up they can at least say "oh, well we should have known".

That Alan Greenspan praises SOX should be enough to discredit it.

AverageBear says

Instead we have liberals on Patrick, that instead of actually THINKING of a solution, will actually try and defend this piss-poor status quo failure, and resort to name-calling, false accusations of me hating the poor. NNNIIIIIIICEEEEE!

No we merely discount solutions that have already PROVEN ineffective. Remember physical food stamps? Yeah. So what would poor people do, who wanted something not on the approved list of items? They'd SELL the food stamps for less than face value, to get cash to get what they actually wanted.

Gift cards? So you give out cards only for the "approved" markets or one that give a good rate, or have good enforcement. Does it matter if these aren't in walking or easy public transit distance from the recipients? Poor people may not have cars and gas money. OK anyhow they buy a bunch of TIDE detergent or dry goods then sell that at a discount, now they have cash for what they do want. Nearly anything you can think of, to regulate and tightly control the way people spend their money, is open to a "free market" solution and will be trivially worked around.

You are indeed an Angry Bear.

Is shouting at strangers in a forum helping?

David Losh says

How much more nanny State are you demanding, because your State already
spends $3 for every $1 spent on Welfare policing it.

----------------------------
I'm very interseted in this claim. Do you have links to back this up? Specifically concerning Massachusetts?

Vicente says

No we merely discount solutions that have already PROVEN ineffective.
Remember physical food stamps? Yeah. So what would poor people do, who wanted
something not on the approved list of items? They'd SELL the food stamps for
less than face value, to get cash to get what they actually wanted.

Gift cards? So you give out cards only for the "approved" markets or one that
give a good rate, or have good enforcement. Does it matter if these aren't in
walking or easy public transit distance from the recipients? Poor people may not
have cars and gas money.

------------------------------------------------------
Vic,

Why are you pulling food stamps out of your ass? When did I mention food stamps in this thread? i sure remember them, taking them when I was a cashier back in the 80's. Mentioning a 30 year old solution is quaint.

Mentioning food stamps brings nothing to your argument. I'm talking about a re-usable gift card for a supermarket, either with, or without a photo ID. Both forms become less valuable to pawn off for cash, as opposed to food stamps. You give away the card for cash, and you lose your ability to get food until the card is replaced. The person keeps the same card indefinitely, as it gets recharged w/ funds every week/month to shop for FOOD (not booze, not drugs) at the nearest supermarket. Are you still with me? I'm not talking food stamps. Kinda shoots your retarted 'food stamp' argument out of the water.

Tell me Vic, where do you think poor people currently get their food? Whether or not they pay for it w/ their own money, they are going to go to the same place; and chances are, it's a chain supermarket. The argument of 'ooooh poor people don't have cars and $$ for gas to get their food'?? What a LAME excuse. Then explain to me all of the cars I see in the project's parking lots where I used to live (Medford, MA)? Camrys, Accords, etc; brand new to 15+ years old; with a good representation of Escalades and Lexus' (more so than MY neighborhood, and I live in a nice area)....

God-forbid you make people get on a bus to get to the food store to get food FOR FREE. Shit, I used to do that as a college kid. What makes these welfare recipients so special?...Oh, that's right, I forgot. They are the 'victims'.. My bad.

As for the 'approved' supermarkets, there would be no 'approved' supermarkets. Every chain in the commonwealth would be used. And I'm pretty sure every chain has these gift cards.

What else you got? Because your status quo attitude to this failed distribution of welfare (EBT cash distributions) in my state, has got more holes in it than my spaghetti collander. You can't defend the fact that EBT $$ gets spent on booze, drugs, bail, nail salons, lottery, casinos OUT OF STATE, cruises, etc.

But no, no, no. Omniscient-Vic says we can't even try to improve this failure of gov't here in my state. PFFT.