If it gets that far it's going left.

Maybe we couldn't put a halt to this kind of abuse, but we could slow it down. People are less likely to "game the system" in the light of day than in the darkness.

Beating the system this way would still involve an extra step and would leave the welfare recipient with less money than if he were able to purchase cigarettes or whatever with the debit card. It could also be made illegal (if it is not already) to do what you suggested above or to convert money in the debit card to cash. This wouldn't eliminate fraud but it would make it less prevalent by raising the risk of performing such an action, especially if it is publicly known that the person doing it is on welfare..

But you don't have a bankster to print fiat (cash, vouchers, etc) for you. All you have is honor, ethics, integrity, reputation, credit rating over 800, debt-free property assets.

This is why I was not in favor of publishing such a list. Vigilanteism could run amok.

At my WalMart a few weeks ago, the person with the EBT card in front of me got less hassle than I did over a valid credit card.

As SaltyDog mentioned they already kind of stick out for holding up the line at the grocery.

Families on assistance use WIC vouchers for formula, EBT card for groceries, and cash for beer and magazines. So they get rung up 3 times.

Also, and this may be why they 'need' help, some who are really bad at math get a cart full of groceries and either go over the limit and have to take stuff off, or they hand stuff over one item at a time until they hit the amount on the EBT card, and the rest of the stuff has to be cleared away.

I have always wondered why they don't have a special line for people who need to use assistance, not so much as for shaming people but just to speed up the lines.

I suppose Grocery Stores think that would be bad for business or they would get sued or something.

I think a separate line would be good for business as they could devote clerks to the extra processing it takes, and for better or worse, every one would know who is paying with food stamps. That might be an incentive for people to be more independent.

Prop 8 was to ban same-sex marriage and it failed, ultimately. Oh, it was passed by the voters. But, the courts took over and negated the vote.

I'm curious. What would you personally do with that information? I don't know what I'd do with it...probably nothing.

I know many people think we can put a halt to this kind of abuse of the producers. I don't. I think it's too late.

When we had Proposition 8 here in California (maintain marriage as man and women) those who contributed money to keep marriage as was had their names and addresses published by the Sacramento newspaper. Frankly, I was disgusted by that. What if there's a nutjob out there wanting to take drastic measures, and what if these families have little children? No...for me it's too much.

Realize what we're doing here with this kind of thing. The government system provides an environment for an R-gene population to flourish - with welfare, food stamps, government schools, etc. Then, we attack the livestock. No. I'd rather just go Galt at this point.

For the record, I am in favor of publication, not only of the names of welfare recipients, but also (to the extent possible) exactly what each of them spends the money on. Publishing online statements for their government-issued debit cards would not be difficult technologically, and it would likely cut down on purchases of liquor, cigarettes and lottery tickets by welfare recipients. Taxpayers deserve a full accounting of how government funds are spent, and this includes spending on welfare.

I see merit in this idea. I'm not sure about the addresses, but the names should be public record, and I don't see it as "name and shame". Rather, if I see someone for example using welfare for food staples, fine...that's what it's for. But if that individual now takes out cash to buy beer, cigarettes, Lotto tickets, TV dinners, etc., as a taxpayer I should have some recourse. In my experience, the given example is more the rule than the exception.