Wisconsin FoodShare fraud crackdown questioned (12-fold increase under Gov. Scott Walker)

LaCrosse Tribune ^ | May 4, 2015 | Bill Lueders Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

[Enten]

“There’s a lot of judgment going on by white, middle-class people..........” Sure can’t have that now, can we?

I will get a drug test for a job, but it is unfair for someone taking “charity”, paid for by others including me, to be required to take a drug test to be on the dole. Explain that.

[generally]

>>By the way, I just read this weekend by a black journalist that calling someone a “thug” is the equivalent of the “N” word. Also that discussing Food Stamp fraud is “racist.”

Why do we allow thugs and racists to make these sort of pronouncements? We need to make pronouncements of our own.

Here are some pronouncements, declarations, and word definitions we should start using:

1. Using the word “racist” is an admission that you yourself are a racist.
2. Using the word “racist” is an admission that you see yourself as a victim and that you are completely helpless and unable to take care of yourself and that you consider yourself totally dependent on the mercy of those you call “racist.”
3. Using the word “racist” means that you would rather focus on laying blame on others than fixing problems that you have yourself.
4. If the N word is ok for rap artists to use, it’s ok for everyone to use.
5. Most people, when they hear the N word, do not think of hard-working black Americans. They think of thugs. So, yes, it is no wonder that “thug” and the N word might be considered synonymous.
6. Discussing food stamps is not racist. Discussing food stamps indicates desire to use the program to help the truly needy and those with temporary financial issues.
7. Discussing food stamps show the compassion of taxpayers who are concerned that those who fraudulently take them are jeopardizing the future of charitable efforts designed to help the truly needy.

And, btw, has anyone else noticed that what blacks prefer to be called changes at least once every 10 years? Colored. Negro. Afro-American. Black. People of Color. African-American. .... IMO, the reason for this is that whatever the current term is, it becomes tainted by the sociopathic behavior of a highly visible minority of the group. Once the term becomes tainted, there is a rush to coin a new word in order to escape from that taint. A better plan would be to quash the sociopaths in the group and allow the productive black Americans to thrive. Then whatever description was used for them would have a positive connotation and they wouldn’t need to keep changing it or trying to run away from it.

[Balding_Eagle]

Now if Scott proposed going to Congress with limits on the types of food that could be purchased with government money that would be a huge step in the right direction.

You will be given the opportunity to help make that happen.

Vote Walker.

[Oatka]

Once the term becomes tainted, there is a rush to coin a new word in order to escape from that taint.

Communist, Socialist, Liberal, Progressive comes to mind for the same reason.

[Finny]

Yep. Just more government, more cowbell.

Walker is good. Cruz is GREAT.

[JimRed]

Starving the cheats?

[generally]

I was thinking about that, too. Also related, communists used to be associated with the color red, which had a negative connotation, so the media used red for Republicans and it has stuck. It will be interesting to see what happens if the color blue becomes tainted as the democrat (loser) color. My bet is the media will try to switch again and claim it was just a random color assignment.