The FACTS on Food Stamps

[Pete7469]

BRING THE JOBS BACK.

Typical looser mentality. Need someone else to "provide" you with a job.

I have to agree with his sentiment. If government would get off the necks of the wealthy, stop interfereing with business, and just basically fuck off for a while so that we had a positive environment for an economy to grow in, there would be more jobs than we'd know what to do with.

I remember when I first got to TX in 98. There were contractors competeing for skilled electricians. It was a workers paradise, you could demand good wages if you were good at it.

We still have it pretty good in TX, but not like before. I still will never return to NY.

 

[JoeBlam]

Can't you see they are taking more than they need now?

Nope, sure can't. But then I believe little of what I hear and almost nothing that I read so there ya go. In my business experience I depended on customers having discretionary income. That no longer exists for a growing portion of our citizens.....I don't hate them for losing their jobs and giving up after years of interviews that went nowhere. Either we bring the jobs that were off-shored back or we risk a permanent under-class of those on government programs we can no longer afford. And never believe the gated communities won't be overrun if this thing falls apart.....EBT is a safety net as much for us as those who are going without.

 

[JoeBlam]

BRING THE JOBS BACK.

Typical looser mentality. Need someone else to "provide" you with a job.

I have to agree with his sentiment. If government would get off the necks of the wealthy, stop interfereing with business, and just basically fuck off for a while so that we had a positive environment for an economy to grow in, there would be more jobs than we'd know what to do with.

I remember when I first got to TX in 98. There were contractors competeing for skilled electricians. It was a workers paradise, you could demand good wages if you were good at it.

We still have it pretty good in TX, but not like before. I still will never return to NY.

You really think a guy who can't spell "loser" correctly is a winner at anything?

 

[syrenn]

I think this whole thing is overblown nonsense. My experience with merchants taking EBT is that the majority of them understand the rules and follow them. They make their best mark-ups on deli food and spirits, two areas of the store EBT isn't allowed into. I have no beef with a poor person having a slice of pie on occasion.....WTF is our problem? People will always game a program, any program. All the government can do is make an example out of those they do catch like the IRS does. The MSM dutifully prints and broadcasts the sentences given to "welfare queens" to scare off potential offenders. Poor people have to eat like the rest of us.....if they can't do it legally, they'll take what they need from somebody. There is only one answer to all this mess....BRING THE JOBS BACK.

Can't you see they are taking more than they need now?

Nope, sure can't. But then I belive little of what I hear and almost nothing that I read so there ya go. In my business experience I depended on customers having discretionary income. That no longer exists for a growing portion of our citizens.....I don't hate them for losing their jobs and giving up after years of interviews that went nowhere. Either we bring the jobs that were off-shored back or we risk a permanent under-class of those on government programs we can no longer afford. And never believe the gated communities won't be overrun if this thing falls apart.....EBT is a safety net as much for us and those who are going without.[/QUOTE]

a safety net that will afford them lobster dinners and all the junk food they want.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think this whole thing is overblown nonsense. My experience with merchants taking EBT is that the majority of them understand the rules and follow them. They make their best mark-ups on deli food and spirits, two areas of the store EBT isn't allowed into. I have no beef with a poor person having a slice of pie on occasion.....WTF is our problem? People will always game a program, any program. All the government can do is make an example out of those they do catch like the IRS does. The MSM dutifully prints and broadcasts the sentences given to "welfare queens" to scare off potential offenders. Poor people have to eat like the rest of us.....if they can't do it legally, they'll take what they need from somebody. There is only one answer to all this mess....BRING THE JOBS BACK.

Can't you see they are taking more than they need now?

Nope, sure can't. But then I believe little of what I hear and almost nothing that I read so there ya go. In my business experience I depended on customers having discretionary income. That no longer exists for a growing portion of our citizens.....I don't hate them for losing their jobs and giving up after years of interviews that went nowhere. Either we bring the jobs that were off-shored back or we risk a permanent under-class of those on government programs we can no longer afford. And never believe the gated communities won't be overrun if this thing falls apart.....EBT is a safety net as much for us and those who are going without.[/QUOTE]

Seems by the stats that folks eligible for EBT are getting really really fat. Wonder why that is... laziness maybe?

 

[Esmeralda]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.

SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]


SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]

Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2006 to 2008.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.

The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.

SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]

Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]



Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.

Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xiii]

While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xiv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xvii]

Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xviii]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xix]

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2-3 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits.[xx] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.

In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.


Program Growth

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.


The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxi]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxii]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

Great post!

In a country where the majority of the population is over weight and often obese, a country where enough food to feed several third world nations is annually thrown away, it boggles the mind that you resent feeding the poor. Given all the other 'real' problems in American, feeding the poor is not something to get your feathers ruffled about. Food banks are one of the best programs in America. If you are concerned that too many people use the taxpayer's money to feed their kids, go out and do volunteer work for a food bank and make sure these kids are getting fed with or without the use of taxpaper dollars. Volunteer to go to supermarkets and gather food that would otherwise be thrown out. Help the food banks stock up their supplies and make sure there are no hungry people in America. Stop bitching and whining and acting like a modern day Marie Antoinettes (although she didn't actually say 'let them eat cake.'). Let them eat cake and cookies and anything they want if they can get it for free from a foodbank, if it is food that would be thrown out anyway. It's no skin off your nose.

 

[JoeBlam]

I think this whole thing is overblown nonsense. My experience with merchants taking EBT is that the majority of them understand the rules and follow them. They make their best mark-ups on deli food and spirits, two areas of the store EBT isn't allowed into. I have no beef with a poor person having a slice of pie on occasion.....WTF is our problem? People will always game a program, any program. All the government can do is make an example out of those they do catch like the IRS does. The MSM dutifully prints and broadcasts the sentences given to "welfare queens" to scare off potential offenders. Poor people have to eat like the rest of us.....if they can't do it legally, they'll take what they need from somebody. There is only one answer to all this mess....BRING THE JOBS BACK.

Can't you see they are taking more than they need now?

Nope, sure can't. But then I belive little of what I hear and almost nothing that I read so there ya go. In my business experience I depended on customers having discretionary income. That no longer exists for a growing portion of our citizens.....I don't hate them for losing their jobs and giving up after years of interviews that went nowhere. Either we bring the jobs that were off-shored back or we risk a permanent under-class of those on government programs we can no longer afford. And never believe the gated communities won't be overrun if this thing falls apart.....EBT is a safety net as much for us and those who are going without.

a safety net that will afford them lobster dinners and all the junk food they want. [/QUOTE]

I believe I already addressed the "lobster dinner" dodge you used, and as for "junk food", maybe if fruits and vegetables were affordable like they used to be, there'd be less fattening (ie cheap) food consumed. You've lost touch with how the "new poor" got that way....maybe you're involved in a business venture that uses slave labor, or maybe you just like to believe you're "special" and have no use for the less fortunate. I don't know or care frankly. I find myself in a postition of defending a government program I wish we didn't need because some of you elitists are throwing around charges about corruption I don't believe.

 

[syrenn]

Can't you see they are taking more than they need now?

Nope, sure can't. But then I belive little of what I hear and almost nothing that I read so there ya go. In my business experience I depended on customers having discretionary income. That no longer exists for a growing portion of our citizens.....I don't hate them for losing their jobs and giving up after years of interviews that went nowhere. Either we bring the jobs that were off-shored back or we risk a permanent under-class of those on government programs we can no longer afford. And never believe the gated communities won't be overrun if this thing falls apart.....EBT is a safety net as much for us and those who are going without.

a safety net that will afford them lobster dinners and all the junk food they want.

I believe I already addressed the "lobster dinner" dodge you used, and as for "junk food", maybe if fruits and vegetables were affordable like they used to be, there'd be less fattening (ie cheap) food consumed. You've lost touch with how the "new poor" got that way....maybe you're involved in a business venture that uses slave labor, or maybe you just like to believe you're "special" and have no use for the less fortunate. I don't know or care frankly. I find myself in a postition of defending a government program I wish we didn't need because some of you elitists are throwing around charges about corruption I don't believe.

if you can purchase lobster....then its not off the menu now is it.

 

[High_Gravity]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

 

[Luissa]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

There is certain places, but you have to meet a certain criteria. You have to be elderly, homeless, or disabled.

 

[RKMBrown]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

I hear some people don't have the ability to use fire. Those socialists are breading a whole new type of American citizen.

 

[Luissa]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

I hear some people don't have the ability to use fire. Those socialists are breading a whole new type of American citizen.

You are a hack. Go away.

 

[syrenn]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

There is certain places, but you have to meet a certain criteria. You have to be elderly, homeless, or disabled.

here in CA.... there are no "criteria" You can use EBT cards to purchase fast food and starbucks coffee. Lots of them have all put up "we now accept EBT" up in the doors.

 

[RKMBrown]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

I hear some people don't have the ability to use fire. Those socialists are breading a whole new type of American citizen.

You are a hack. Go away.

Make room, apologizer coming through for the do not want to work crowd.

 

[High_Gravity]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

There is certain places, but you have to meet a certain criteria. You have to be elderly, homeless, or disabled.

here in CA.... there are no "criteria" You can use EBT cards to purchase fast food and starbucks coffee. Lots of them have all put up "we now accept EBT" up in the doors.

I can't confirm or deny this, but I heard in Massachussets you can just withdraw the money off your EBT card, like a debit card? I think someone posted something about this a while back.

 

[Pete7469]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

There is certain places, but you have to meet a certain criteria. You have to be elderly, homeless, or disabled.

here in CA.... there are no "criteria" You can use EBT cards to purchase fast food and starbucks coffee. Lots of them have all put up "we now accept EBT" up in the doors.

You live in Commiefornia?

Good lord.... You poor thing! I wish we could trade you for one of the bed wetters we have in Austin.

 

[Pete7469]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

I hear some people don't have the ability to use fire. Those socialists are breading a whole new type of American citizen.

You are a hack. Go away.

You're a bed wetting imbecile.

It's easier to make you go away.

/ignore

Ahhh.... That's better.

 

[RKMBrown]

 

[JoeBlam]

a safety net that will afford them lobster dinners and all the junk food they want.

I believe I already addressed the "lobster dinner" dodge you used, and as for "junk food", maybe if fruits and vegetables were affordable like they used to be, there'd be less fattening (ie cheap) food consumed. You've lost touch with how the "new poor" got that way....maybe you're involved in a business venture that uses slave labor, or maybe you just like to believe you're "special" and have no use for the less fortunate. I don't know or care frankly. I find myself in a postition of defending a government program I wish we didn't need because some of you elitists are throwing around charges about corruption I don't believe.

if you can purchase lobster....then its not off the menu now is it.

You're kidding right? Once again for the memory-impaired, you'll find anybody buying a lobster using EBT at a grocery store is almost always somebody who's found a new job, or a new husband, or a stash of pirate gold, ie is no longer eligible for benefits and simply burning out their remaining total to celebrate. Trying to turn that trickle into a gully-washer is simply dishonest. Do you own this site by any chance?

 

[JoeBlam]

I heard in some places their letting people use their EBT card at fast food places, because not everyone has a stove to cook on.

I hear some people don't have the ability to use fire. Those socialists are breading a whole new type of American citizen.

"breading"?