Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving family?

Is it wrong to steal food to feed your starving family?

  • Total voters
    50
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Aah, that's what I thought Harrekin was getting at..

OK, so you guys don't believe the numbers. What do you base that on? That you think the department of labor would lie about it to make it seem like there is less fraud being committed than there actually is, right? OK, so where's the evidence of this?

This is the problem. This is what I was getting at earlier, we can disagree about anything, but when one side starts throwing out objective data because they just don't accept it as the truth because they hate the administration or whatever, that's when you get relegated to the kids table. We have shit like science for a reason, so that in cases where I think I'm right and you think you're right, there is an objective source to look to to see who is actually right. When that source says I'm right, you guys don't believe it, don't acknowledge it, dismiss it, throw it out.

This is the one thing that pisses me off the most about these issues. Your side can't accept when they're wrong, about anything, ever.
Click to expand...
LOL pad mad!!

Think about this for a sec. You are claiming we are aware of all fraud and the only reason we allow what little actually happens is because it's insignificant.

That's not having a side, that's not a political ideology, that's just saying OF COURSE there is fraud that we are unaware of, otherwise we'd be prosecuting more fraud.

It takes picking a side to believe the crap you are spewing. We know exactly how much fraud because my leaders tell me so is the epitome of sheep. No wonder you get mad when we don't agree, you can't explain your belief, we can and it bothers you.

If you had to guess, how many people get away with speeding compared to those who get tickets 1000 to 1? more/less?
How many get away with shop-lifting 100 to 1? more/less?
How many get away with murder? 10 to 1? more/less?
How many get away with fraud? None? can't be more, that changes the rhetoric you are spewing.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Aah, that's what I thought Harrekin was getting at..

OK, so you guys don't believe the numbers. What do you base that on? That you think the department of labor would lie about it to make it seem like there is less fraud being committed than there actually is, right? OK, so where's the evidence of this?

This is the problem. This is what I was getting at earlier, we can disagree about anything, but when one side starts throwing out objective data because they just don't accept it as the truth because they hate the administration or whatever, that's when you get relegated to the kids table. We have shit like science for a reason, so that in cases where I think I'm right and you think you're right, there is an objective source to look to to see who is actually right. When that source says I'm right, you guys don't believe it, don't acknowledge it, dismiss it, throw it out.

This is the one thing that pisses me off the most about these issues. Your side can't accept when they're wrong, about anything, ever.
Click to expand...
Statistics on fraud are not complete. They don't catch ALL the fraud.

They aren't lying. They have no idea how much fraud there is beyond the people they catch.

You dolt.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
LOL pad mad!!

Think about this for a sec. You are claiming we are aware of all fraud and the only reason we allow what little actually happens is because it's insignificant.

That's not having a side, that's not a political ideology, that's just saying OF COURSE there is fraud that we are unaware of, otherwise we'd be prosecuting more fraud.

It takes picking a side to believe the crap you are spewing. We know exactly how much fraud because my leaders tell me so is the epitome of sheep. No wonder you get mad when we don't agree, you can't explain your belief, we can and it bothers you.

If you had to guess, how many people get away with speeding compared to those who get tickets 1000 to 1?
How many get away with shop-lifting 100 to 1?
How many get away with murder? 10 to 1?
How many get away with fraud? None?
Click to expand...
I quoted the official rate of fraud according to the department of labor. You're framing your opinion on the baseless claim that the actual rate of fraud is higher without providing any evidence to support your claim. I actually suspect it probably is a little higher, but it sure as fuck isn't 20%. And on the larger issue, opposing social safety net programs based on the assumption that they're wasteful is inconsistent with reality, I just told you the republicans in congress give billions of dollars in subsidies every year to corporations - corporate welfare - do you think 0% fraud takes place in any of those places? Where's your outrage there?

Why do you only pipe up with an opinion when it's poor people you perceive taking advantage of the system?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I quoted the official rate of fraud according to the department of labor. You're framing your opinion on the baseless claim that the actual rate of fraud is higher without providing any evidence to support your claim. I actually suspect it probably is a little higher, but it sure as fuck isn't 20%. And on the larger issue, opposing social safety net programs based on the assumption that they're wasteful is inconsistent with reality, I just told you the republicans in congress give billions of dollars in subsidies every year to corporations - corporate welfare - do you think 0% fraud takes place in any of those places? Where's your outrage there?

Why do you only pipe up with an opinion when it's poor people you perceive taking advantage of the system?
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's 20, I'm just giving you a number for example, I don't know how much, you don't either. That's the point. If I had evidence of fraud that was not reported, that would be fraud itself. I could have used 3, 30, 55, 5, 11 or 4 instead of 20, the number of reported frauds would still be 1. You seem to miss that.

You reported numbers of what fraud is, yet you suspect those numbers to actually be higher. You still used those numbers that you don't really believe to make a point. That sucks man.

Corporate welfare really sucks, we should stop doing that. The GM bailout sucked, GE's tax rate is stupid and what Wall Street did was criminal and the fact that there aren't a bunch of people in prison over it is also criminal.

I've shared my outrage over corporate welfare, wall street welfare and the cronyism that exists. I've bitched about public unions, the corruption of private unions ruining the union label that I endorse. Am I allowed to laugh at your fraud stats now? Stats that you yourself say are most likely not right but you will use anyway if it fits your argument?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
There's a big difference between pulling numbers out of your ass, which is what you're doing, to support your position, and using verifiable numbers provided by the department of labor. With any statistic comes a margin of error, that's the "I suspect it's probably a little higher" remark - that'd be within the margin of error inherent in the system
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
If that would work like you believe it would, why was the idea of a safety social net ever invented?
Click to expand...
Government invented charity? .....just had to take that easy jab at your Forest Gump level intellect.

To more directly answer your questions. Votes. Was "invented" for votes. War on poverty=votes.

Follow up question for you: Do you have any clue how politics work, or you just like to think yourself righteous. What/when was your last act of charity?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
To more directly answer your questions. Votes. Was "invented" for votes. War on poverty=votes.
Click to expand...
Social safety net programs were a direct result of the great depression (caused by classical economic influence throughout the 1910's-1920's), the fact that they were extremely popular was an effect of their success, not vice versa.
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Social safety net programs were a direct result of the great depression (caused by classical economic influence throughout the 1910's-1920's), the fact that they were extremely popular was an effect of their success, not vice versa.
Click to expand...
the new deal was horrible for america. im not continuing with someone stupid enough to think it was good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty i bet you love the war on drugs too
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Do you think it's wise to hold an opinion based on an assumption?
Click to expand...
It is not an opinion. It is a fact that not all criminal activity is caught.

This site has people that have been caught doing illegal things but they were not caught everytime.

Just because you don't know how to convert foodstuffs to cash doesn't mean families aren't doing it.

They are doing it. AND NOT GETTING CAUGHT.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
It is not an opinion. It is a fact that not all criminal activity is caught.

This site has people that have been caught doing illegal things but they were not caught everytime.

Just because you don't know how to convert foodstuffs to cash doesn't mean families aren't doing it.

They are doing it. AND NOT GETTING CAUGHT.
Click to expand...
The assumption is the quantity of fraud being committed. You assume it's high based on no evidence.
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The assumption is the quantity of fraud being committed. You assume it's high based on no evidence.
Click to expand...
I assume it is higher than what can be reported because they haven't caught them.

Do you live in a poor neighborhood?


People barter and trade food, baby formula, milk and eggs for cash or other goods. Because they feel they have to.

Unfortunately it is illegal to do.

Fortunately it is pretty easy to hide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top