14,000 food stamp recipients own luxury vehicles

[ajax18]

You don't think that a person should have to sell his $350,000 Roll's Royce before he can receive government welfare benefits? How many people being taxed to pay for those benefits can afford a $350,000 automobile?



Did you see what happened to lower ranking state government officials, like Ms. Bernstein who referred welfare fraud for prosecution in the state of Minnesota? Did you see what Keith Ellison and Tim Walz did to them?

https://www.house.mn.gov/Caucus/View/NR ... rce=openai

Ajax. I can see the point about expensive cars but I have a hard time see many such being so short on income as to be snap eligible. Perhaps some quick business collapse.

The Minnesota article appears to be about very different things. Contract irregularities are referred to. That suggest corruption which should be investigated I think

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Without an politically independent commission, it will never be investigated. How did Nick Shirley, a kid with nothing more than a phone and a youtube channel, go and uncover more Somali daycare fraud than any mainstream media outlet full of paid professionals? It wasn't uncovered because they wanted this fraud to remain hidden.

[Limnor]

Look at this from the workers perspective rather than the welfare collectors perspective.

I am a taxpayer, and so that is how I look it. I’m all for reducing fraud, but I think a society has a responsibility to its impoverished. I suppose the real argument is how much and how we help, but ultimately, for me, no one should go hungry if we can help it.

[canpakes]

I guarantee you that the people arguing for limited government and personal responsibility are not the same people who own a $350k Roll's Royce while being on food stamps.

ajax, there is mention of one person from this ‘study’ supposedly driving a Rolls Royce, with no data supporting any claim about what it’s ‘worth’ or how that was determined.

There are a number of screen captures in this thread already showing ‘luxury cars’ that can be purchased for a tenth of the median cost of a new car, or newer used car.

Since the term ‘luxury’ becomes largely meaningless when you’re trying to apply it to a car brand commonly available from hundreds of market sources in any metro area for under $10K, what is it that people should do? Is a large swath of the population needing to be bound by a stupid application of a label that you want to use so that you can be angry about their choice, even when their choice is one of the cheapest options available?

[Res Ipsa]

The OP represents the moral rot at the heart of MAGA. It uses deception to trigger anger at the most vulnerable population in the country. The emotional response is intended to prevent the rational part of the brain from asking “What are the’luxury’ cars worth?” “Why is “luxury car” the yardstick and not the amount of income or assets?

It’s dishonest. Intentionally dishonest. Maliciously intended to make the reader mad at people who can’t feed their families rather than the broligarchy that has siphoned wealth from the working and middle classes.

Shame on you, Ajax. If you hadn’t killed off your conscience, you’d feel it.

[canpakes]

• 3,636 Lexuses.

This ‘luxury’ car accounts for about one-quarter of the total number of cars being complained about.

I just sorted KSL for Lexus at $10,000 or less, and received 97 listings, in my area alone.

97 choices from one brand, all under $10K, all within an hour’s drive. Not bad for a ‘luxury car’.
; )

[canpakes]

Why is “luxury car” the yardstick and not the amount of income or assets?

It’s dishonest. Intentionally dishonest.

It’s all about what the label is supposed to imply, rather than the facts around the situation. It’s designed to paint a picture.

This is the reason why I know to steer well clear of any business that finds it important to advertise that they’re ‘Christian owned’, because that label will likely represent the complete opposite of the reality experienced in working with them.

[canpakes]

I guarantee you that the people arguing for limited government and personal responsibility are not the same people who own a $350k Roll's Royce while being on food stamps.

You can’t even guarantee that any supposed owner of a $350K Rolls Royce is a professor or is on food stamps.

From the report comes this footnote:

“… these cases also reflect possible cases of identity fraud that were under investigation.”

[huckelberry]

I guarantee you that the people arguing for limited government and personal responsibility are not the same people who own a $350k Roll's Royce while being on food stamps.

You can’t even guarantee that any supposed owner of a $350K Rolls Royce is a professor or is on food stamps.

From the report comes this footnote:

“… these cases also reflect possible cases of identity fraud that were under investigation.”

You can check snap rules on line. There is no vehicle value limit. A person could be eligible with a million dollar car. It is income which determines how much benefit is to be received. A person can be eligible for zero benefits due to income. Same applies to categorical eligibility, mentioned in opening, amount is determined by income and may be small or none due to income. The program helps people struggling to eat due to small or terminated income.

[huckelberry]

You can’t even guarantee that any supposed owner of a $350K Rolls Royce is a professor or is on food stamps.

From the report comes this footnote:

“… these cases also reflect possible cases of identity fraud that were under investigation.”

You can check snap rules on line. There is no vehicle value limit. A person could be eligible with a million dollar car. It is income which determines how much benefit is to be received. A person can be eligible for zero benefits due to income. Same applies to categorical eligibility, mentioned in opening, amount is determined by income and may be small or none due to income. The program helps people struggling to eat due to small or terminated income.

a further observation about categorical eligibility. The material in the opening post makes categorical eligibility sound like a blind give away. That is a misunderstanding. Many working poor have fluctuating income through the year. They become ineligible with income increase then reapply when it decreases. They creates administrative cost processing applications, interviews etc.over and over sgain. Categorical eligibility allowed the case to go into suspense,zero benefit amount, then adjust when income dropped. The device was a strategy to limit administrative cost a bit.

[Res Ipsa]

Ajax. I can see the point about expensive cars but I have a hard time see many such being so short on income as to be snap eligible. Perhaps some quick business collapse.

The Minnesota article appears to be about very different things. Contract irregularities are referred to. That suggest corruption which should be investigated I think

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Without an politically independent commission, it will never be investigated. How did Nick Shirley, a kid with nothing more than a phone and a youtube channel, go and uncover more Somali daycare fraud than any mainstream media outlet full of paid professionals? It wasn't uncovered because they wanted this fraud to remain hidden.

As to your question about Nick Shirley, he didn't.