Fingerprints & Food Stamps

A photo on a card would be a lot quicker and easier than being asked for you driver's license when you use a check at the grocery.

But good point. Let's deliver the food to the food stamp users so they don't even need to be seen in public.

pineinthegrass wrote: I'm not even clear on just how fingerprinting would reduce food stamp fraud.

Is there a photo on the EBT card? If not, maybe that would help make sure the person using the card is the one it was issued to.

You could claim benefits for different homes under assumed names.

pineinthegrass wrote: A photo on a card would be a lot quicker and easier than being asked for you driver's license when you use a check at the grocery.

But good point. Let's deliver the food to the food stamp users so they don't even need to be seen in public.

But then they have to cook it. It would be better that they be allowed to use restaurant runners as benefits since a lot of food stamp users are also disabled.

When we have these food stamp discussions, the point about people being embarrassed keeps coming up and how we need to make sure they aren't embarassed.

The main reason someone might be embarrassed that I can see is that those colorful stamps or the EBT card identify them to the grocery clerk or possibly some people in line as a food stamp user.

Now, the government could just give them cash or a Visa good only at grocery stores and that would eliminate most of the embarrassment. But the government wants to to make sure they use the stamps only for food and not for booze or cigarettes. And they want the grocery clerk to help enforce that and prevent fraud. So it's the government's own policy that causes the embarrassment.

I mentioned adding a photo to the card which may or may not be effective in reducing fraud. But I sure don't see how it would add to any embarrassment. Your just asking the grocery clerk to also check a photo while he's loooking at the groceries. Again, it's the card or stamps themselves that cause any humiliation or embarrassment.

Of course this also raises the question of just how embarrassed food stamp users are anyway, and I don't really know the answer. I'm guessing there are people on each end of the spectrum. If I needed food stamps I'm sure I'd be embarrassed to use them but what's wrong with that? I sure wouldn't expect the government to make me less embarrassed.

Bloomberg supports foodstamp fingerprinting, was elected as an Independent running on the Republican ballot line. Cuomo opposes fingerprinting and is a Democrat. Whether others have the opinion this is not a partisan issue doesn't matter to me. It is a partisan issue. The Republicans, in typical Republican big govt fashion want more control of people.

plaidvillain wrote: Bloomberg supports foodstamp fingerprinting, was elected as an Independent running on the Republican ballot line. Cuomo opposes fingerprinting and is a Democrat. Whether others have the opinion this is not a partisan issue doesn't matter to me. It is a partisan issue. The Republicans, in typical Republican big govt fashion want more control of people.

Bloomberg is a conservative and I smoke donkey s**t... you're really straining credibility... you actually think anyone take that comment seriously?

Bloomberg only ran as a Republican so he could get on the ballot. He is a fervent anti-gun supprter.

plaidvillain wrote: Bloomberg supports foodstamp fingerprinting, was elected as an Independent running on the Republican ballot line. Cuomo opposes fingerprinting and is a Democrat. Whether others have the opinion this is not a partisan issue doesn't matter to me. It is a partisan issue. The Republicans, in typical Republican big govt fashion want more control of people.

Food stamps already involve big government control of people and invasion of privacy.

To qualify for them you must disclose your income and all your assets to the government.

To use them the government tells you what you allowed to purchase and monitors what you purchase with them.

So it's already a big government program, and if you want something from the government you should know the government is going to impose it's rules on you if you want what they have to offer.

So, that means that they have enough information on you that this constant b.s. about "buying things like booze and cigarettes" (which are prevented from ringing up on the computerized cash registers), and having multiple accounts is total crap.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've been trying to for quite some time.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, that means that they have enough information on you that this constant b.s. about "buying things like booze and cigarettes" (which are prevented from ringing up on the computerized cash registers), and having multiple accounts is total crap.

Thanks for pointing that out. I've been trying to for quite some time.

That presumes goverment employees are doing a good job reviewing cases instead of robo-signing. Or watching porn instead of Bernie Madoff like the SEC...