Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think those numbers are right...what site are you using?To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:
(Household Size, Urban, Rural I, Rural II)
1 $227 $290 $353
2 $417 $532 $648
3 $598 $762 $928
4 $759 $968 $1178
5 $902 $1150 $1399
6 $1082 $1380 $1679
7 $1196 $1525 $1856
8 $1367 $1743 $2121
Each additional $+171 $+218 $+265
So family of five in the city gets $902/m. This sounds high to me, we had a family of 5 (3 teen age boys) and it was like $600-700/m groceries for us... We're not real fancy eaters, but we do buy steaks and pepper bacon from the butcher every week...
Now I presume these kids are also getting free school lunch too, I don't suppose that cost comes out of their SNAP benefits? I paid out another $300/ish a month for my boys to get school lunch (which I guess argumentatively would put our bill at about $900/m.) Though the free food at school program up here offers kids both breakfast and lunch for free though... Anyway, even if the kids are getting free breakfast/lunch we'd be roughly talking about like $2/meal (ish). ~shrug~ /That/ doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
I'll just trash it...So no hamburger either?Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
It's strictly oatmeal for you little mister.
Only if the lady is not below the poverty line of 265%I eat oatmeal everday. It's awesome. Of course, my oatmeal has fruits and nuts and brown sugar and other goodies mixed in. Could I keep the goodies if I bought my oatmeal with food stamps? What if I mugged an old lady and took her food stamps--could I also buy steak?
I still snort Pixie Stick dust....If I got food stamps I trade them for reeses peanut butter cups!
I don't think those numbers are right...what site are you using?To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:
(Household Size, Urban, Rural I, Rural II)
1 $227 $290 $353
2 $417 $532 $648
3 $598 $762 $928
4 $759 $968 $1178
5 $902 $1150 $1399
6 $1082 $1380 $1679
7 $1196 $1525 $1856
8 $1367 $1743 $2121
Each additional $+171 $+218 $+265
So family of five in the city gets $902/m. This sounds high to me, we had a family of 5 (3 teen age boys) and it was like $600-700/m groceries for us... We're not real fancy eaters, but we do buy steaks and pepper bacon from the butcher every week...
Now I presume these kids are also getting free school lunch too, I don't suppose that cost comes out of their SNAP benefits? I paid out another $300/ish a month for my boys to get school lunch (which I guess argumentatively would put our bill at about $900/m.) Though the free food at school program up here offers kids both breakfast and lunch for free though... Anyway, even if the kids are getting free breakfast/lunch we'd be roughly talking about like $2/meal (ish). ~shrug~ /That/ doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Snap is a fed program. Unless Alaska has a state supplement (which I doubt but isn't beyond the realm of possibility, given the fact that they have oil subsidies to play with)....I just am not seeing it. And I've never seen different *rates* based on where you live? Though again, it could be an Alaska thing. But more than a hundred bucks per person?????
Which is why we should limit them, if we can't eliminate them.That's because the purpose of these federal programs isn't charity. The purpose of these federal programs is to manage the population.More than 600 for a family of four with one working parent, or two parents working part time.It DOES keep them from starving, inasmuch as you can prevent stupid individual choice at all. It's not necessary to restrict purchases to any particular standard of "good for you" to achieve that. And it's not like you can sit on people and forcefeed them, so it's never going to be possible to rule out the chance of someone voluntarily starving himself.
I wouldn't worry about their wonderful standard of living. Generally speaking, SNAP doesn't give out that much money to a family every month (I suppose there are people gaming the system for a bundle, but that's a different issue). Yes, they may decide to spend it all on steak the first week of the month, and then have to buy beans and Ramen with their own cash the rest of the month, but average families could do that with their food budget if they wished, as well. The fact that they don't just evidences the common sense, good judgement and self-control that allows them not to be dependent on welfare in the first place.
600 in foodstamps can enable a pretty awesome standard of living for people who already don't have to pay for rent or electricity, school lunches or even Christmas presents, thanks to the charity of their communities and federal entitlement programs. I've talked to hundreds of people who, upon finally bringing in an income that is sufficient to support their families, whine that "I'm being punished for working!" when they find out their foodstamps have been reduced. And their response is to quit their jobs. Why should they work if they eat worse when they're working than they do when they aren't, and have LESS disposable income? If you earn $600 a month, and you don't have to pay rent, food, or utilities, that's $600 you can spend on fun!
There's a difference between limiting and micromanaging. We already limit them by requiring that SNAP can only be spent on consumable items with a certain nutrition content (there have actually been energy drinks that did not meet that fairly low standard, which tells you a lot about why they went out of business), requiring that it cannot be used to purchase prepared foods such as deli items or hot foods, etc. Getting into "too nice for you to have on public money; other people don't have that kind of stuff" is micromanaging. It's just pandering to resentment, not really accomplishing anything useful.
It needs to be further limited.
It's my fucking money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.Exactly.It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".
Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?
My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.
The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.
First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?
Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.
Since so many of the recipients of our tax funded food program that feeds them are children, ya, someone has to show them an educated way to eat and since the funds involved are tax payer funds, it is appropriate to have some kinds of watch dog control. Nobody is telling people how to live by limiting how they spend donated food assistance funds. They have the ability and freedom to purchase whatever they want with their own money. It is not an attempt to control how people live by insisting that the five dollars we give them be spent on oatmeal instead of bacon. Only a very stupid person would not understand that science has proven beyond any doubt that eating cholesterol lowering oatmeal packed with vitamins is healthier than eating cholesterol causing processed bacon packed with chemicals and blood pressure increasing salt. To top it off, the five dollars worth of bacon will last a very short time and do little to prevent hunger while the five dollars worth of oatmeal will provide many days worth of hunger relief.It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't spend my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.what if its round steak?.....
And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.
WHAT is "called science"? Your personal fucking opinion of what is and isn't healthy and acceptable?
You ARE suggesting that people be told how to live. You don't think restricting the welfare payments to only purchasing food - and that only of certain general types - isn't enough. We should now play nitpicking Grocery Police for "good enough" food, and presumably spark a big controversial debate over whose standard of "good enough" we're going to use, leading to ongoing adjustments of what is and isn't covered according to whoever's in power at the moment, costing everyone bunches of extra money to keep reprogramming the computers to exclude this or that or the other thing.
Able to insist? You are. Is it a good idea or particularly helpful to anything other than your condescending sense of self-righteousness? Not really.
I could (and have) fed a family of 8 on about 450 a month.To get back to the food bundles thing, I'm guessing that's now community stuff rather than government stuff (or is it more like /some/ states do that still? I doubt it would have ever been feasible up here honestly, 3mo growth season and all)
Anyway, I've been trying to research this a bit in my spare time and I found the following for Alaska SNAP:
(Household Size, Urban, Rural I, Rural II)
1 $227 $290 $353
2 $417 $532 $648
3 $598 $762 $928
4 $759 $968 $1178
5 $902 $1150 $1399
6 $1082 $1380 $1679
7 $1196 $1525 $1856
8 $1367 $1743 $2121
Each additional $+171 $+218 $+265
So family of five in the city gets $902/m. This sounds high to me, we had a family of 5 (3 teen age boys) and it was like $600-700/m groceries for us... We're not real fancy eaters, but we do buy steaks and pepper bacon from the butcher every week...
Now I presume these kids are also getting free school lunch too, I don't suppose that cost comes out of their SNAP benefits? I paid out another $300/ish a month for my boys to get school lunch (which I guess argumentatively would put our bill at about $900/m.) Though the free food at school program up here offers kids both breakfast and lunch for free though... Anyway, even if the kids are getting free breakfast/lunch we'd be roughly talking about like $2/meal (ish). ~shrug~ /That/ doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
If you want to learn how to feed a lot of people on a shoestring, take lessons from the primary chef in a large Mexican family, or better yet, a large Laotian or Cantonese family.
Bag of rice, some bags of veggies, and weird cuts of meat that are applied VERY sparingly..and beans. The Mexicans make tortillas. And they all eat quite well, with enough foodstamps left over to barter for whatever they want.
Of course..they do supplement with dogs and cats and the occasional goat.
Well, if you waste it, then you don't have any more for the rest of the month, and you get to find another way to pay for your food. So what? This is really just about resenting poor people for getting welfare, which I can understand, but I have no interest in reacting by trying to micromanage people's lives even further.
The thing is, how many EBT cards get filled per month for the same money as goes to a single vacation for Michelle and her vast entourage? I have better things to resent than feeding the poor...
Excellent observation! Why do Conservative allow Liberals to control the dialogue? THAT should be what is debated here! This Liberal pops in to USMB to post a smarmy thread about mean old Republicans wanting to deny the starving their steak and lobsters, and Conservatives immediately fall all over themselves explaining and clarifying... WHY? We should just all say Republicans don't want people having to rely on food stamps, period!
The Liberals knock us off message all the time and we respond like a bunch of trained seals. They know what they are doing, they understand that we don't really want people to starve or do without, but all the time they can get us to spend defending our positions and explaining our policies, that's time we aren't focusing on Benghazi or the IRS shenanigans. All the load of crap and corruption happening daily with this administration, and we're stuck here arguing with morons about steaks and lobster!
See, that's where I am. I have problems with food stamps in general. I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"
It's my fucking money you dumbass. If you want the best of foods get a job and support yourself. If not be grateful to the tax payers that are supporting your dumbass.You can when you're responsible enough to support yourself. If you expect tax payers to support you then you lose certain choices.Exactly.
I used to bristle at the thought of denying foodstamp recipients carte blanche when it came to spending their snap dollars as well, I was like "If it's legal for them, they should have the authority to spend it as they please".
Except that begs the question....what is the purpose of the program? The purpose of the program is to stave off starvation. If that's the purpose, then why are we providing empty calories that serve no purpose?
My change of mind came after having a series of involved discussions with a DHS program manager, over the course of 4 years. She said it wasn't a hardship and it wasn't micromanagement...this is CHARITY..and all the rest of us have to budget our food allotment, why should snap recipients be any different? Why should they be able to buy doritos and m&Ms and soda fountain pop..when those of us who are PAYING for their food can't afford them? That's just backwards and wrong.
The purpose of the program is to provide people the means to purchase food. At some point, we have to stop treating people like children, assume they can make decisions for themselves, and then let them live with the consequences of deciding badly.
First it wasn't enough to let people go hungry if they wouldn't provide for themselves (I'm not a supporter of letting people suffer if they're incapable of providing for themselves); we had to provide for them. Now it's not enough for them to be fat and unhealthy if they don't choose to eat properly; we must force them to eat what we think they should. At what point do we stop treating adults like retarded five-year-olds and taking over more and more of their independence?
Is it reading comprehension or ignorant dick attitude that makes you incapable of having a conversation without making it about the personal? No wonder you're eating your liver out over what you imagine other people are doing. Get a grip.
Ignorant dick attitude it is. Call me when you grow up into a real conservative instead of stumbling by accident into a position and thinking it makes you mature.
It isn't complicated at all. There has been a program operating that restricts and designates foods for decades and it works just fine. It is called WIC It is a program for expectant mothers, infants and children that does exactly as I have been suggesting to be implemented through the entire food assistance program. It reduces cost and insures expectant mothers, infants and children are healthier. The health benefits reduce medical cost. The foods are designated by nutrition and health experts and the producers pay for and apply the labels. No one is forcing anyone into anything. The recipients are not forced into accepting free food. If people do not want to accept free food that the government has deemed as healthy and appropriately priced, they don't have to accept the free food. What you suggest is that when we hand a bowl of vegetable soup, a fresh garden salad and apple juice to a person they can refuse it and demand a double bacon cheeseburger and fries with a milk shake. What I suggest is if they don't want the soup, salad and juice they can go get the burger, fries and shake with their own money, not mine.Since so many of the recipients of our tax funded food program that feeds them are children, ya, someone has to show them an educated way to eat and since the funds involved are tax payer funds, it is appropriate to have some kinds of watch dog control. Nobody is telling people how to live by limiting how they spend donated food assistance funds. They have the ability and freedom to purchase whatever they want with their own money. It is not an attempt to control how people live by insisting that the five dollars we give them be spent on oatmeal instead of bacon. Only a very stupid person would not understand that science has proven beyond any doubt that eating cholesterol lowering oatmeal packed with vitamins is healthier than eating cholesterol causing processed bacon packed with chemicals and blood pressure increasing salt. To top it off, the five dollars worth of bacon will last a very short time and do little to prevent hunger while the five dollars worth of oatmeal will provide many days worth of hunger relief.It is called science, but common sense can tell you lots. And I am not suggesting people be told how to live. I am suggesting that when we give charity to to people we should have some control of how the charity is used. They can spend their own money however they want. If my money is being spent to feed your kids I should be able to insist you don't spend my donated money on soda and candy. If you don't like the rules don't take the donation.All unhealthy food should be off the list. Red meat is not a healthy source of protein.
And who gets to decide and dictate to others what "healthy" is? I'm sure you're creaming your jeans in anticipation of even more opportunity to tell people how to live.
WHAT is "called science"? Your personal fucking opinion of what is and isn't healthy and acceptable?
You ARE suggesting that people be told how to live. You don't think restricting the welfare payments to only purchasing food - and that only of certain general types - isn't enough. We should now play nitpicking Grocery Police for "good enough" food, and presumably spark a big controversial debate over whose standard of "good enough" we're going to use, leading to ongoing adjustments of what is and isn't covered according to whoever's in power at the moment, costing everyone bunches of extra money to keep reprogramming the computers to exclude this or that or the other thing.
Able to insist? You are. Is it a good idea or particularly helpful to anything other than your condescending sense of self-righteousness? Not really.
koshergrl See? This right here is what you're opening the door to. Just THINK how much money can be wasted by complicating the system with fools like this attempting to use it to impose their personal preferences onto others' lives.
If I needed no other argument against unintentional complicity with leftists, Camp here would suffice.
You show that you have no idea of what you are talking about. The programs may be funded at the federal level, but they are controlled at the state level. The state folds the food assistance programs into the overall state public assistance program. The state determines the foods approved or disapproved following a flexible set of federal guideline and control enforcement. If your state has a lousy program it is your responsibility to repair it.See, that's where I am. I have problems with food stamps in general. I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"
Well, I can be pragmatic enough to admit that we need some sort of federal-level program in place to ensure the public isn't suffering an inhumanity. I don't have a problem with that, I think it's fine... but what has happened is, that sentiment (which most have) has been exploited and taken advantage of, over and over, until we have "poor folks" buying up all the steak and lobsters on our dime.
We need a serious roll-back to what the proper roles of federal government are. The general welfare is not supposed to mean what it has been interpreted to mean. And if anyone wants to go back and look at the arguments made by Madison and others during the debates on this, they will find that he was particularly fearful that people would take "general welfare" to mean precisely what they've taken it to mean today. Actually, "fearful" is the wrong word, some were fearful but he explained why he didn't think people would be so stupid as to think that. "To provide for the general welfare" can't mean every whim you can dream up that you think government ought to do for people. It can't mean that! It is a moronic interpretation that Madison believed no one would ever make. Yet... we have!
I don't mind having a national base-level safety net for those who fall through the cracks in society. But this particular net has turned into a luxury hammock with catered drinks in paradise. We've now created a system which actually does more harm than good because when people try to get off the gravy train, it's too hard. They get jobs and *boom* all the free stuff is gone, so now they are worse poor than before and having to work to boot. No motivation to do this! Fixing the problem requires we motivate people-- not continue to demotivate them.
You show that you have no idea of what you are talking about. The programs may be funded at the federal level, but they are controlled at the state level. The state folds the food assistance programs into the overall state public assistance program. The state determines the foods approved or disapproved following a flexible set of federal guideline and control enforcement. If your state has a lousy program it is your responsibility to repair it.See, that's where I am. I have problems with food stamps in general. I have no intention of conceding the idea that the government should support millions of American families, and start debating, "But they're gonna live the way I want them to!"
Well, I can be pragmatic enough to admit that we need some sort of federal-level program in place to ensure the public isn't suffering an inhumanity. I don't have a problem with that, I think it's fine... but what has happened is, that sentiment (which most have) has been exploited and taken advantage of, over and over, until we have "poor folks" buying up all the steak and lobsters on our dime.
We need a serious roll-back to what the proper roles of federal government are. The general welfare is not supposed to mean what it has been interpreted to mean. And if anyone wants to go back and look at the arguments made by Madison and others during the debates on this, they will find that he was particularly fearful that people would take "general welfare" to mean precisely what they've taken it to mean today. Actually, "fearful" is the wrong word, some were fearful but he explained why he didn't think people would be so stupid as to think that. "To provide for the general welfare" can't mean every whim you can dream up that you think government ought to do for people. It can't mean that! It is a moronic interpretation that Madison believed no one would ever make. Yet... we have!
I don't mind having a national base-level safety net for those who fall through the cracks in society. But this particular net has turned into a luxury hammock with catered drinks in paradise. We've now created a system which actually does more harm than good because when people try to get off the gravy train, it's too hard. They get jobs and *boom* all the free stuff is gone, so now they are worse poor than before and having to work to boot. No motivation to do this! Fixing the problem requires we motivate people-- not continue to demotivate them.
She said we should limit them. I said we did once, under Clinton. I was referring to "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996." Go ahead and Google it yourself, ya jerk.We did once, under Clinton... then we elected Obama.
What did we eliminate under Clinton?
This should be RICH...
I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.Hamburger meat runs around $3.50 a pound. Ribeye steak runs around $12.99 a pound. What do you think?So no hamburger either?Food stamps are suppose to be for poor people who cannot afford basic food items. If you can waste a majority of your food stamps on steak. You don't need them. If you think it's not fair that you can't buy steaks with your food stamps. Then get a job.
You can stock up a wagon of cereals on your welfare and eat healthy.I think someone telling me buying processed cheese is ok but real meat is not is an idiot.
