I don’t think the public has said right, but I would not be upset if investigators checked this sort of thing out. Tracking down where they got the money is a legitimate avenue of investigation.
I would also would not care if the companies involved in welfare did their own check up to make sure it wasn’t fraudulent, although I doubt they would find anything.
If there is a reasonable need to search public aid records I don’t see why it couldn’t be done by court issued permission. Seeing if public funds were diverted to criminal purposes is one such reason, but that applies to crimes other than terrorism. This should be something police can investigate, I don’t think that journalists/reporters should be able to access such information.
Why is it the business of Joe Blow where the brothers got their money/supplies? They have no right to go hareing off on personal nongovernmental investigations - they aren’t freaking Miss Marple. The police and FBI will do their investigations and hopefully find all the answers.
Sheesh, half of what is wrong in this damned country is newspapers/journalists and asshole gossipers sticking their noses in where they don’t belong. Let the damned government do their jobs. Stop the damned rumors from circulating, stop all teh conspiracy theorists from raising an uproar and things would probably get resolved much faster.
This. Just because they might have been on welfare doesn’t mean they don’t have any money at all.
Yes, it is. But let’s get real here: this is happening because some people on the right want to use the bombings to their political advantage. Some people want to use it as the basis for welfare cuts, others insist there has to be an investigation into student visas even though neither of the bombers had a student visa. If neither of those pans out they’ll try something else. There could be similar things happening on the left, but I can’t think of one at the moment. Maybe the example would be the early theorizing that maybe this was the work of Tea Party nuts or militia members.
I suspect whatever we saved on taxes would make up for the increase in grocery prices. Note: I am not in favor of eliminating food stamps. Just that the argument that they save me money on groceries does not seem to hold water.
As for the OP, I don’t see why we would need to know what they spent their food stamps on. Unless we have probable cause to suspect it has something to do with the bombing, or some other crime.
Regards,
Shodan
What nonsense.
There is a reason why we have whistleblower hotlines. There is a reason why investigative journalism (used to be) important.
If the government had done their job in the first place the older brother would have been deported when he was investigated the first time. The public has every right to hold the government to close scrutiny.
BTW…food stamps arent a subsidy of the grocery industry and they dont lead to lower prices.
Maybe those who send their kids to public schools should also have their records open for all to see (tongue in cheek)
After he gets the death penalty, they can tack on another few years for welfare fraud. This will mean he stays dead longer.
Not true. If you read a little bit you can find exactly what kind of scrutiny he was subjected to, what came of it, and why nothing else was done. Based on what’s been reported so far I find it hard to fault the government’s performance. The big problem was that the FBI and CIA both asked the Russian government for more information about him and their requests were ignored.
Yes, it does.
Yes, it does. Including, for instance, asking whether the government should be wasting our tax dollars investigating possible penny-ante welfare fraud by two people who will never ever be in a position to either do it again or receive any punishment for it.
But back to the OP, the friend thinks that anyone getting food stamps should be obligated to reveal their personal information to the public. Does the friend think that would also apply to someone, say, getting an earned income tax credit? (A benefit for low-income workers)?
If so, what about someone getting a child tax credit (it very gradually phases out at high incomes, but most middle-income taxpayers are eligible)? And if yes to that, what about anyone getting a mortgage income deduction? If not, can the friend explain exactly what the difference is? Because I don’t really see it.
Law enforcement is entitled to this information, and some of it may be in the public interest to disseminate, though I’m not sure what. I am sure at least some of this information will become public anyway.
Quercus-I asked him if it would’ve bothered him if Nichols and McVeigh were on welfare. To his credit, he said it would.
I think I know how food stamps work, but I’m having much difficulty trying to figure out what records you’re talking about (food purchases?) and why it even matters at all in the first place.
I am not the friend, but I think the distinction is between a tax deduction and a subsidy. The Earned Income Tax Credit is a subsidy - those who receive it are getting back more from the government than they pay in taxes. The mortgage tax deduction, and the dependent deductions, are deductions. It is not possible to use them to get back from the government more than you paid in taxes. Social Security is different, but that is supposed to be an investment (although not a very good one). Medicare is more like insurance.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, my point is that there’s a whole range of benefits people get, from food stamps to disability payments to social security retirement benefits, to tax credits to being able to use public roads or benefit from clean air regulations. Some of these are income-tested and some aren’t. I was wondering where he draws the line, as far as the recipient being obligated to give up all privacy.
I like how when welfare and immigration cuts happen, it’s just for political advantage and “wrong”. When things like guns, other events, are taken away by the left, it’s a logical solution. :rolleyes:
I assume he’d want to know who’s on means tested benefits.
I imagine any “right” to know will actually come down to the well-established right of the prosecuting entity, or the defense lawyers, to issue subpoenas, and to fight subpoenas, and to how the court that ends up trying the bomber rules on any such fight. IANAL, though. Why the prosecutors would bother to subpoena records like that is beyond me, though. Maybe one of our resident lawyers will weigh in.
Can’t see how one or both of the suspects having received food stamps, or any other form of public assistance, is all that relevant. In the scheme of things, whether or not they diverted a few bucks from their intended purpose seems like pretty small potatoes.
But it is my business. Ultimately that’s MY money that I paid in taxes, not your money, and as such, it’s entirely appropriate for me, and all the other taxpayers to know how you spend it, especially since it’s a public program, not a gift.
If you don’t want people telling you how to spend their money, earn some of your own.