Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

California Parents Who Starved and Shackled Children Sentenced to Life

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • California Parents Who Starved and Shackled Children Sentenced to Life

    There are some sick people out there.

    It's hard to imagine for most of us how people can operate like this.

    But there are those who do..

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A California couple who for years starved a dozen of their children and kept some shackled to beds were sentenced Friday to life in prison, ending a shocking case that revealed a house of horrors hidden behind a veneer of suburban normalcy.

    The conditions inside David and Louise Turpin's home in suburban Los Angeles came to light only after one of their daughters fled and pleaded for help to a 911 operator. The parents pleaded guilty in February to neglect and abuse.

    The sentencing was preceded by the first public statements from some of the children, who alternately spoke of love for their parents and of what they had suffered, as the couple wiped away tears. None of the children was publicly identified.

    The Turpins will be eligible for parole after 25 years.

    "I'm sorry for everything I've done to hurt my children. I love my children so much," Louise Turpin said.

    One of the children asked for a lighter sentence for the parents because "they believed everything they did was to protect us."

    when deputies arrived, they were shocked to find a 22-year-old son chained to a bed and two girls who had just been set free from shackles. Most of the 13 children who ranged in age from 2 to 29 were severely underweight and had not bathed for months. The house was covered in filth and filled with the stench of human waste.

    The children said they were beaten, caged and shackled if they did not obey their parents.

    The teenage daughter escaped by jumping from a window. After a lifetime living in isolation, the 17-year-old did not know her address, the month of the year or what the word "medication" meant.

    But she knew enough to punch 911 into a barely workable cellphone and began describing years of horrific abuse to a police dispatcher.

    Deputies testified that the children said they were allowed to shower only once a year. They were mainly kept in their rooms except for meals, which had been reduced from three to one per day, a combination of lunch and dinner. The 17-year-old complained that she could no longer stomach peanut butter sandwiches they made her gag.


    ...

    https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sh.../19/id/912506/



  • #2
    California seems to have a bunch of them. Must be something in the water or the air.

    ?


    • #3
      Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
      California seems to have a bunch of them. Must be something in the water or the air.
      I think it's the entire environment there in that state.

      Used to be a beautiful place.

      Then it was taken over.

      Many decent people are fleeing that state as fast as they can.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

        I think it's the entire environment there in that state.

        Used to be a beautiful place.

        Then it was taken over.

        Many decent people are fleeing that state as fast as they can.
        And there's human crap all over the street, and armies of homeless. Doesn't sound all that well run or well led to me.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
          And there's human crap all over the street, and armies of homeless. Doesn't sound all that well run or well led to me.
          It's a strange phenomenon in many of todays big cities now.

          Exploding populations of "homeless" people.

          We've always had some.

          Now the problems and filth - some of it very dangerous - they leave around, is becoming a real issue !

          What has changed ? What happened that made this problem explode in just the last 15 or 20 years ?

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            It's a strange phenomenon in many of todays big cities now.

            Exploding populations of "homeless" people.

            We've always had some.

            Now the problems and filth - some of it very dangerous - they leave around, is becoming a real issue !

            What has changed ? What happened that made this problem explode in just the last 15 or 20 years ?
            From what I understand, in the case of LA and San Francisco, many become homeless because they simply can't afford to pay the ever increasing rent cost. There's thriving upper-middle class employment in those places, and the city's leaders have retardedly regulated the creation housing developments near impossible, thus instituting a housing shortage.

            Eventually the idiots in Kalifornia's state legislature will run out of people who can pay their exorbitant taxes for their idiotic social programs and other decisions (i.e. high speed rail), enough people would have fled (are fleeing) the state, that it'll financially collapse, and housing will have become affordable once again.

            Be never be it said that socialists don't like a good shortage of life's necessities. Just look at Venezuela.

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
              From what I understand, in the case of LA and San Francisco, many become homeless because they simply can't afford to pay the ever increasing rent cost. There's thriving upper-middle class employment in those places, and the city's leaders have retardedly regulated the creation housing developments near impossible, thus instituting a housing shortage.

              Eventually the idiots in Kalifornia's state legislature will run out of people who can pay their exorbitant taxes for their idiotic social programs and other decisions (i.e. high speed rail), enough people would have fled (are fleeing) the state, that it'll financially collapse, and housing will have become affordable once again.

              Be never be it said that socialists don't like a good shortage of life's necessities. Just look at Venezuela.
              What is bothersome is that cities in the state we live in, are having the same issue with homeless people..

              The price goes up, jobs... we hear about all these great jobs... but there aren't all these great jobs.. really.

              Housing for people who don't, or can't bring in an even moderate income is unaffordable...everyones taxes go through the roof as you say,..

              ... and things get worse while were told how great things are.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                What is bothersome is that cities in the state we live in, are having the same issue with homeless people..

                The price goes up, jobs... we hear about all these great jobs... but there aren't all these great jobs.. really.

                Housing for people who don't, or can't bring in an even moderate income is unaffordable...everyones taxes go through the roof as you say,..

                ... and things get worse while were told how great things are.
                The solution, clearly, is to help these people build valuable skills and a resume so they can be self sufficient. Some are thinking that universal basic income is the answer. I'm not so sure.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                  The solution, clearly, is to help these people build valuable skills and a resume so they can be self sufficient. Some are thinking that universal basic income is the answer. I'm not so sure.
                  That will lead nowhere good.

                  Why bother with work when you have a "basic income" given to you for doing no more than existing ?

                  We'll be told;

                  "That won't be a problem, don't be so cynical !"

                  By the same people who think they can make socialism/communism work for us and make things fair, equal and beautiful.

                  This garbage has been tried and tried, sampled over and over and it leads to hell always.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    That will lead nowhere good.

                    Why bother with work when you have a "basic income" given to you for doing no more than existing ?

                    We'll be told;

                    "That won't be a problem, don't be so cynical !"

                    By the same people who think they can make socialism/communism work for us and make things fair, equal and beautiful.

                    This garbage has been tried and tried, sampled over and over and it leads to hell always.
                    I think you're completely misunderstanding the idea behind a universal basic income.
                    The idea is that it will give people enough money so they don't starve to death but that's about it.
                    I have a feeling that 99.9% of people have rather loftier ambitions for life than that and would rather go to work unless they absolutely can't.
                    The idea is that this is a safety net for people who are caring for sick relatives and such it's not exactly a path to a work free cushy lifestyle.

                    The idea that having a universal basic income will make people lazy is both insulting and stupid in the extreme but then again I expect nothing less from this place.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                      I think you're completely misunderstanding the idea behind a universal basic income.
                      The idea is that it will give people enough money so they don't starve to death but that's about it.
                      I have a feeling that 99.9% of people have rather loftier ambitions for life than that and would rather go to work unless they absolutely can't.
                      The idea is that this is a safety net for people who are caring for sick relatives and such it's not exactly a path to a work free cushy lifestyle.

                      The idea that having a universal basic income will make people lazy is both insulting and stupid in the extreme but then again I expect nothing less from this place.
                      Meh. I suspect that those "99.9% of people have rather loftier ambitions for life" is awfully optimistic. I rather think that a large majority of these people'll take that, and do some sort of under the table hustle, probably one more illegal than working under the table, to make up some sort of difference.

                      If you look at welfare fraud, I suspect this would be far more realistic to have a similar track record to that.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                        Meh. I suspect that those "99.9% of people have rather loftier ambitions for life" is awfully optimistic. I rather think that a large majority of these people'll take that, and do some sort of under the table hustle, probably one more illegal than working under the table, to make up some sort of difference.

                        If you look at welfare fraud, I suspect this would be far more realistic to have a similar track record to that.
                        You're seriously arguing that a large majority of Americans would be happy on subsistence living and then just having a bit of under the table deals?
                        That's really saying something about just how little you think of fellow Americans and It also shows you think that they're fine with committing petty crime so good going.

                        Of all the arguments you could make about the scheme I wasn't expecting you to go down this path.
                        I also question your idea that welfare fraud is a major problem as again I feel that most people on welfare have enough sense of self worth to try and get off it as soon as possible. I know I did the 2 times I was made redundant when the company I was working for closed.
                        Yeah, I could have stayed on benefits but I got new jobs instead and I don't feel like I'm a particularly motivated person.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

                          You're seriously arguing that a large majority of Americans would be happy on subsistence living and then just having a bit of under the table deals?
                          That's really saying something about just how little you think of fellow Americans and It also shows you think that they're fine with committing petty crime so good going.

                          Of all the arguments you could make about the scheme I wasn't expecting you to go down this path.
                          I also question your idea that welfare fraud is a major problem as again I feel that most people on welfare have enough sense of self worth to try and get off it as soon as possible. I know I did the 2 times I was made redundant when the company I was working for closed.
                          Yeah, I could have stayed on benefits but I got new jobs instead and I don't feel like I'm a particularly motivated person.
                          A bit older, but hard to imagine that much has changed. Ald Look! It's from the UK based 'The Economist', so it just must be true!

                          Stealing from the government - SIRFs up
                          Cleverer use of data and investigative collaboration can help cut fraud
                          Nov 30th 2013 | ATLANTA AND TAMPAhttp://www.economist.com/news/united...fraud-sirfs-up
                          UNCLE SAM is being bilked, big-time. Losses from health-care scams alone are between $70 billion and $240 billion a year, reckons the FBI. An ever higher percentage of frauds (false claims for welfare payments, tax refunds and so on) are being perpetrated with stolen identities. Some 12.6m peopleone every three secondsfell victim to identity theft in the United States in 2012, according to Javelin Strategy and Research. The problem only grows as benefit programmes strive for efficiency and convenience, shifting applications online and making payments to prepaid debit cards, which can be bought in shops, require no bank account and allow money to be laundered quickly and easily. The self-proclaimed first lady of tax-refund fraud is Rashia Wilson (posing with the loot on her Facebook page, above) who, along with her eager associates, claimed bogus rebates of more than $11m.
                          A degree in computer science is not needed to steal personal data. Names, addresses and Social Security numbers can be nicked from doctors surgeries, nursing homes and hospitals, either by insiders (a medical assistant was indicted in June for allegedly selling hundreds of names to feed his crack habit) or outsiders (who may distract secretaries and grab patient logs). Swindlers commonly prise information from the unsuspecting over the phone by posing as, say, Medicare reps. Some use the identities of dead people after trawling genealogical or family-support websites. The Affordable Care Act is a gift: complaints about phone calls and visits from bogus Obamacare navigators are on the rise.
                          A favourite pursuit of identity thieves is tax-refund fraud, not least because the scope for abuse is so big: 145m individual income-tax returns are filed each year in America, of which three-quarters are entitled to a rebate. Using stolen personal details and made-up withholding forms, a fraudster can apply online for dozens of refunds a day, to be sent to addresses of his choosing. When the real taxpayer tries to file a return (assuming hes alive), the IRS rejects it, and the mess can take months to sort out. So common is this scam that it has its own acronym, SIRF (for Stolen Identity Refund Fraud).
                          Some who have been caught at it admit to working on an industrial scale, putting in 12-hour days with a dozen or more accomplices, each filing return after return on laptops. Some street gangs are moving from drugs to refund fraud because it is more lucrative, less physically dangerous and, in some states, much less harshly punished. The craze has even spread to prisons. The IRS caught more than 170,000 dodgy requests from inmates between January and September of last year. How many slipped through the net is anyones guess.
                          The war against fraud is increasingly being waged from business parks in leafy suburbs such as Alpharetta, north of Atlanta. In an inconspicuous low-rise building belonging to LexisNexis, an online-information firm that is part of Reed Elsevier, dozens of computer racks, each holding 80 servers, link up with each other (and a sister site in Boca Raton) to form a vast supercomputer. These black boxes house a five-petabyte database, big enough to hold the DNA of Americas entire population 15 times over. To keep them from overheating, cold air is blasted against them through floor vents, then sucked into the ceiling to be re-cooled. In a nearby control room a team monitors the system on a giant screen filled with spider diagrams.
                          [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Erik/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.jpg[/IMG]
                          Chrome-plated on the IRS
                          [img]http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20131130_USP006_0.jpg[/img]

                          LexisNexiss data trove includes everything from property, vehicle-registration and other public records to legal filings and proprietary data bought from firms that serve consumers, such as insurers. Along with other information providers, including credit bureaus such as Equifax and Experian, it has been busily developing its risk solutions business in recent years. A big part of this is helping the government spot fraudulent requests for cash, preferably before the money goes out of the door.
                          Some 30 state and federal agencies use fraud filters designed by LexisNexis that run requests against the millions of names, addresses and other bits of personal information in its database and flag those that look suspicious (because, say, they share an address with 20 similar requests). These can quickly identify patterns that would take months to spot through manual investigation. The filters are developed by data scientists who combine maths wizardry with data skills and knowledge of the government programme being defrauded.
                          Georgia is a pioneer. Its Department of Revenue uses LexisNexis to flash up potentially fraudulent requests. Those who make them are contacted and asked multiple-choice questions about past addresses, vehicles they have owned and the like. Only those who answer them all correctly get the refund. (They have two chances.) The results are impressive. Of the 4m returns filed in the state last year, 160,000 were found to be iffy. Total savings were $110m, of which Douglas MacGinnitie, the revenue commissioner, attributes $23m directly to the fraud filters, which cost just $3m to set up and run. Mr MacGinnitie embraced the analytics-based approach after experiencing refund fraud first-hand: his wifes 2010 return was rejected because, it later transpired, someone had filed a fake return in her name, claimed the rebate on a prepaid card and vanished with the cash.
                          In another state (it wont say which) LexisNexis helped uncover a group that had set up a virtual apartment block of post boxes in a shopping mall and used it to claim $16m of refunds for dead people from other states. The money, claimed in amounts below $10,000 so as not to trigger anti-money-laundering filters, disappeared to Russia. Numerous other fraudsters have had links to the former Soviet Union, including an Armenian-led group indicted in September that had used foreign students who were staying only briefly in America to claim $7m of bogus refunds using 2,000 stolen identities.
                          [IMG]file:///C:/Users/Erik/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.png[/IMG]
                          [img]http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20131130_USC858.png[/img]
                          Florida has the highest rate of ID theft, and its joint capitals are Miami and Tampa (see table). Fake returns in and around Miami are more than 40 times the national average. A number of factors make the state vulnerable to such scams, among them its crowds of pensioners, large numbers of immigrants with poor English (who can be more easily duped into disclosing personal information) and its high rate of people who do not have to file tax returns (meaning more stolen numbers can be used without detection, because they do not generate duplicate filings). So many people stopped by Tampa police in 2011 were found to have lists of stolen IDs on them that the citys exasperated mayor, Bob Buckhorn, declared the IRS missing in action.
                          The agency responded last year by creating a task-force, the Tampa Bay ID Theft Alliance, with federal prosecutors, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Tampas police, county sheriffs and Crime Stoppers. This has helped in a number of ways. Leads are more easily shared. IRS investigators benefit from a closer relationship with local law-enforcers who are nearer the action. As one task-force member puts it: This type of fraud is white-collar but also street-level, so it makes sense to pool resources.
                          As a combined force, the group has been more effective at lobbying for change. It persuaded state lawmakers to make it a felony to be in possession of more than five Social Security numbers without a good excuse. (Previously, even someone with 500 could walk free unless prosecutors could prove intent to defraud, which is tricky.) It has also convinced local banks and credit unions to call when they see unusual withdrawals from ATMs, rather than merely filing suspicious-activity reports. These measures have helped push up convictions and may have spurred the increase in sentences, tooincluding the 21-year jail term handed in July to Ms Wilson.
                          The cost of not checking
                          Such initiatives are helping to soften criticism of the IRS, which peaked after a report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration found the agency might have sent out 1.5m potentially fraudulent refunds in 2011, including 655 to a single address in Lithuania. (In 2010, almost 4,900 went to the five most popular American addresses.) The IRS insists it is getting to grips with the problem. It has doubled the number of employees working full-time on ID theft to 3,000, even as its budget has been cut. This has helped reduce the average time it takes to resolve cases from ten months to four, and has raised the amount of fake refunds that are blocked before being sent out to $20 billion in the 2012 tax cycle, from $14 billion the year before. The IRS could cut losses further if it were able to delay posting refund cheques until it had time to cross-check them against income data from employers, which it receives weeks later. But that would require an act of Congress, and there is little political support for making people wait longer for their money.
                          Like the IRS, the Centres for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers those two programmes, is increasingly using big data to screen demands for money. Floridas department of children and families, which doles out Medicaid payments, food stamps and cash assistance, recently extended a four-county pilot project with LexisNexis across the state after it flagged up dodgy online applications at an annualised rate of $60mmore than 50 times the project cost. The filters caught one woman who was claiming food stamps in all 50 states.
                          Officials in New York City are also using computing power to cut fraud losses, egged on by its outgoing mayor and data evangelist, Michael Bloomberg. Its social-services department is developing an algorithm that will identify those recipients most likely to have unreported income. The key, says James Sheehan, chief integrity officer of the citys Human Resources Administration, is to combine such analytics with traditional detective work, such as property visits and phone calls.
                          It may seem odd that more agencies have not adopted this approach, given its apparently healthy return on investment. Some have just been slow to twig or have got caught up in other priorities, not least the Obamacare roll-out. Others have shown interest, but have been unable to secure funding or to get other agencies to work with them. States are also being held back by federal caution over the new data-driven approach. Take food stamps. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the scheme, requires manual, paper-based verification of applicants, based solely on the information they provide. Florida was the first state to receive a waiver allowing it to verify electronically, using data from third parties. The USDA wants to see its system in action for several quarters before it grants the exemption to others.
                          States that lag behind may see things get worse before they get better. The Tampa task-force believes that several tax-refund fraud rings may have left Florida to set up operations in other states, including Texas and Missouri. Mr MacGinnitie says attempted tax fraud seems to be down this year in Georgia, but it is too early to say if that is because the swindlers have gone elsewhere, or because they have got more astute. They tweak their techniques as required. Some have moved from filing with stolen Social Security numbers to using Individual Taxpayer Identification numbers, which are handed out to legal immigrants. Others have found that filing joint returns helps them slip through the net. As one of the task-force members concludes: We evolve, they evolve.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Oh wow you managed to find a news article that that shows what you think. I did a quick google and did the same

                            For those who aren't familiar, the SNAP benefit is available to low-income individuals and families. For individuals, the maximum gross income they may earn in 2018 and still receive food stamps is $15,684. It is more for families. And the average monthly benefit for 2016 was a mere $125.40 per person, according to government statistics. (See Table 1 in this report.) There are also restrictions on what monetary assets are owned.



                            However, it isn't the size of the individual benefits (which are without doubt small) that is notable. It is the growth in the benefit fraud.

                            How much did fraud grow? It jumped to $592.7 million in 2016, up a staggering 61% from $367.1 million in 2012, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. (See Table 46 in the report.) The monetary figures are "Fraud Dollars Determined By Investigations." In other words, these figures are based on identified incidents. In 2016, the number of fraud investigations totaled 963,965, up more than 30% from 2012. (Side note: Almost half of those investigations were in New York State, according to the report.)

                            On fraud, the USDA says the following:
                            In SNAP, fraud is typically defined as the exchange of benefits for cash or other ineligible items (trafficking) or purposefully misrepresenting information on your SNAP application in order to receive benefits that you are not entitled to or more benefits than you are entitled to receive.
                            YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

                            In simple terms, if you swapped your benefits for cash, etc., or lied about your income or assets, then that's fraud. The fraud totals include what would have been given as a benefit if it had gone undetected, or what the government could recover, the USDA says.

                            However, what is fascinating is that the jump in fraud coincided with a 5% drop in the number of people who received the benefit, to an average total of 44.2 million people, down from 46.6 million, according to the government data.

                            If fraud were a fixed percentage, then we'd expect it to fluctuate with the number of people enrolled, but it didn't. Instead, it jumped while the number of people enrolled in the program dwindled.

                            So yes, fraud grew both in dollar amount and per participant in the program.

                            Should taxpayers be worried?

                            If you are concerned, then consider the following. The total cost of the SNAP benefits disbursed in 2016 was $66.5 billion, down from $74.6 billion in 2012. Those are significant figures because America is a big country.

                            When compared with those total figures, the fraud identified in 2016 amounted to a mere 0.9% of the total. That was up from 0.5% in 2012.

                            Or put another way, 99% of the benefit dollars were in no way associated with fraud, assuming that the government is doing its job of identifying malfeasance. If the fraud figure continues to grow at the same rate, then there is a real problem, but so far not so much.

                            There are, of course, other reasons to cast doubt on the SNAP program, such as it fostering a dependency on government aid, rather than independence, but that's another story.

                            For now, the big question at the end of the day is, how do you entirely eliminate fraud where there is a government program that involves people? Is it possible to do that without entirely scrapping the program?

                            Probably that cannot be done.


                            That's from Forbes and the Economist is hardly going to be impartial on a topic like this is it.

                            https://www.forbes.com/sites/simonco.../#13a58564f880

                            ?


                            • #15
                              From your own article it says this

                              "Its Department of Revenue uses LexisNexis to flash up potentially fraudulent requests. Those who make them are contacted and asked multiple-choice questions about past addresses, vehicles they have owned and the like. Only those who answer them all correctly get the refund. (They have two chances.) The results are impressive. Of the 4m returns filed in the state last year, 160,000 were found to be iffy."

                              That's just 4% who were found to have "Iffy" requests that could be potential fraud , that hardly counts as a major problem.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X