The FACTS on Food Stamps

[asterism]

Food stamps are suppose to be part of a safety net, not a crutch. They are traded for drugs, and every thing else. The system needs harsh reform like the rest of government.

It's supposed to be a safety net. It has become a hammock.

 

[asterism]

Few?

Come on is it fair to say the vast majority of recipients are abusing the system? Wouldn't't it be more accurate to turn that around and say most recipients have a legitimate need, but there is a relatively small percentage of people who abuse it?

Immie

Why are food stamps even allowed in fast food restaurants? Why are they even given to people who don't need them? Why is the system so easily gamed like allowing use at gas stations that charge $1 for a banana when they are 50¢ per pound at the grocery store across the street?

These problems could all very easily go away, if not for the incompetence, laziness, and fraud built into the program.

Why are you even asking me that? Where did I suggest they could or should be able to?

I asked two people from different sides of the arguments in this thread questions. I never gave my opinion.

Why am I being asked to defend one side, now? I mean I will if asked, but I didn't take a stand either way.

Immie

My questions were asked in response to your comment, not meant to be directed specifically at you.

Sorry for being unclear.

 

[asterism]

The system is soooooo easily gamed.

TheDC Investigation: What I was able to buy with my food stamps | The Daily Caller

This is the problem, and it could be fixed. Why don't progressives want that?

The fix is already in place. The average income per household who receives SNAP is $733 per MONTH. The average recipient receives $133 per month, which is less than $1.25 per meal. That is what keeps the average recipient from abusing it.

Get it? Got it? Good.

So you are fine with some big fraud as long as it's manageable in your opinion.

That's sad and it's why progressive programs become so large that they are ineffective. There above is an example of someone who isn't poor at all, but being from a rich family doesn't disqualify him for benefits.

It seems you're okay with this.

 

[rdean]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Too many Republican policies. Worse, Republicans want to lower the minimum wage and cut food stamps. See what that means. Unskilled labor (many being Republicans) will work harder and longer, if they can even find a job, and their party wants them to do it hungry.

 

[rdean]

The system is soooooo easily gamed.

TheDC Investigation: What I was able to buy with my food stamps | The Daily Caller

This is the problem, and it could be fixed. Why don't progressives want that?

The fix is already in place. The average income per household who receives SNAP is $733 per MONTH. The average recipient receives $133 per month, which is less than $1.25 per meal. That is what keeps the average recipient from abusing it.

Get it? Got it? Good.

So you are fine with some big fraud as long as it's manageable in your opinion.

That's sad and it's why progressive programs become so large that they are ineffective. There above is an example of someone who isn't poor at all, but being from a rich family doesn't disqualify him for benefits.

It seems you're okay with this.

If they're from a rich family and they are getting food stamps, I bet they're Republicans gaming the system. Look at the GOP Gov of Virginia. Mr. "Values" Bob.

 

[Annie]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, if there's enough money on the card to cover it.

I do know lots of folks that buy Starbucks and Evian water, don't all 'poor folks?' drink those packaged goods?

I probably qualify for SNAP right now, but I do know that I'm not buying premium water or coffee beverages with my meager earnings. If folks on SNAP can choose this, something is wrong with that program.

I buy on sale produce and 'clearance meats', check online for recipes that I can make with my 'cheap eats.' Seems the way to go, til I can do better.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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)

One of my sister's ex's was on welfare and food stamps. He lived for free in one of his mother's houses, he drove one of her cars and she gave him money all the time, flying him places for example.

He tried to take my sister's child from her so she reported him for all that. The Government of Washington State told her since he did not own the property and they had no evidence of money transfers they would do nothing.

 

[Immanuel]

Why are food stamps even allowed in fast food restaurants? Why are they even given to people who don't need them? Why is the system so easily gamed like allowing use at gas stations that charge $1 for a banana when they are 50¢ per pound at the grocery store across the street?

These problems could all very easily go away, if not for the incompetence, laziness, and fraud built into the program.

Why are you even asking me that? Where did I suggest they could or should be able to?

I asked two people from different sides of the arguments in this thread questions. I never gave my opinion.

Why am I being asked to defend one side, now? I mean I will if asked, but I didn't take a stand either way.

Immie

My questions were asked in response to your comment, not meant to be directed specifically at you.

Sorry for being unclear.

No problem. I was just making it clear that I was not defending Billy's position. I support assisting the poor, but I do think abuse of the system is rampant.

Immie

 

[Londoner]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

The GOP convinced the nation to shift from meager welfare to our poorest citizens to massive welfare for corporations (subsidies/bailouts) by calling the poor welfare queens, many of whom are good Americans who had fallen on hard times because of the same ol, same ol... like when the financial sector detonates a derivative bomb over the economy and precipitates a depression.

This from a president whose father was saved by an FDR work program during the depression.

 

[Annie]

I'm getting the distinct impression most folks here haven't a clue to how reasonable people marshall their resources, including those with limited purchasing power of SNAP.

 

[Luissa]

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)

One of my sister's ex's was on welfare and food stamps. He lived for free in one of his mother's houses, he drove one of her cars and she gave him money all the time, flying him places for example.

He tried to take my sister's child from her so she reported him for all that. The Government of Washington State told her since he did not own the property and they had no evidence of money transfers they would do nothing.

There is no proof what do you expect?
To them she could have been easily trying to get back at him.
Was he on SS? Because you usually can't get tanf if you don't have custody of your children. With one child you still only receive $389 in Washington, and unless you have a medical reason you have to look for a job 20 to 35 hrs a week and turn in job search logs accounting for all those hours.

 

[syrenn]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, if there's enough money on the card to cover it.

I do know lots of folks that buy Starbucks and Evian water, don't all 'poor folks?' drink those packaged goods?

I probably qualify for SNAP right now, but I do know that I'm not buying premium water or coffee beverages with my meager earnings. If folks on SNAP can choose this, something is wrong with that program.

I buy on sale produce and 'clearance meats', check online for recipes that I can make with my 'cheap eats.' Seems the way to go, til I can do better.

funny you should say that annie...

snap folks dont think twice about if they can afford Starbucks or evian water... lobster or caviar.... all they care about is that is what they WANT... and get it. They did not have to earn the money....

in my opinion, if that is what they are buying, then what they are getting is far to much.

 

[Darkwind]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

The GOP convinced the nation to shift from meager welfare to our poorest citizens to massive welfare for corporations (subsidies/bailouts) by calling the poor welfare queens, many of whom are good Americans who had fallen on hard times because the financial sector detonated a derivative bomb over the economy and precipitated a depression.

This from a president whose father was saved by an FDR work program during the depression.

I was wondering when the liars would show up.

 

[Annie]

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, if there's enough money on the card to cover it.

I do know lots of folks that buy Starbucks and Evian water, don't all 'poor folks?' drink those packaged goods?

I probably qualify for SNAP right now, but I do know that I'm not buying premium water or coffee beverages with my meager earnings. If folks on SNAP can choose this, something is wrong with that program.

I buy on sale produce and 'clearance meats', check online for recipes that I can make with my 'cheap eats.' Seems the way to go, til I can do better.

funny you should say that annie...

snap folks dont think twice about if they can afford Starbucks or evian water... lobster or caviar.... all they care about is that is what they WANT... and get it. They did not have to earn the money....

in my opinion, if that is what they are buying, then what they are getting is far to much.

I agree with some, I do wonder about those really in a hole though. Are they not able to understand limited resources? If one only has 200 or 300 bucks to get a family through the month for food, is buying junk food reasonable? Bottled water, in Chicago area, where the drinking water is well beyond the requirements for said bottled water?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Yes. You apparently believe America has about 100 million people in it. That's what's wrong - you're a moron.

SNAP national participation in April 2013 decreased by 175,902 people over the month to 47,548,694 people, but was 1.3 million persons higher than in April 2012. The Program provided an important nutrition safety net across the country.

SNAP/Food Stamp Participation « Food Research & Action Center


47.5 million / 314 million = 15%.

So your number is a bit off. I'm sure the blog you copied it from was really nice looking though, and surely 48% must have felt right to you - so lets just ignore the facts and go with 48% !

 

[syrenn]

This is why I said coupled with other programs. You see, I understand this and other programs so much better than you do.

An income of 733 dollars and 133 dollars in food stamps. That is 866 dollars.

Now, I am living off of government assistance and using section 8. That means I pay a portion of the rent based upon My income. Since food it adjusted out, I pay maybe 400 dollar for rent AND utilities. This leaves Me with 466 dollars to walk around with.

My kids eat for free at the school for two of the daily meals. This means I have to provide them with one meal a day. For one kid at McDonalds, that is 6 dollars a day.

That is 186 dollars in a month with 31 days.

That leaves Me with 280 dollars a month.....

So, you see, this is how kids of welfare parents can get fat on 133 per month food assistance.

I'm not even touching on the more than 50 other assistant programs offered to the poor.

Wow, talk about hypocrisy. So what about people who do not receive section 8 and are on food stamps only? You're saying they should get MORE government assistance?

What hypocrisy are you talking about?

Now you want to change the conditions? Where are your vaunted stats about how many people who take food stamps also take section 8? Or how many people who take food stamps take OTHER government programs too? How many people get more than 1 program? More than a dozen?

Are they mutually exclusive, meaning if you get one, you can't get the others?

How old are your stats? I recall stories of people who have 2 kids making 50k a year getting food assistance.

You post stats, but you only go so far, and you NEVER ask the real questions.

Do you?

these were interesting links....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOTYH5ItZv8]Living off the Government - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB0ovI4sUD0]How 2 live free off the government in 1+ minute! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[syrenn]

Yes, if there's enough money on the card to cover it.

I do know lots of folks that buy Starbucks and Evian water, don't all 'poor folks?' drink those packaged goods?

I probably qualify for SNAP right now, but I do know that I'm not buying premium water or coffee beverages with my meager earnings. If folks on SNAP can choose this, something is wrong with that program.

I buy on sale produce and 'clearance meats', check online for recipes that I can make with my 'cheap eats.' Seems the way to go, til I can do better.

funny you should say that annie...

snap folks dont think twice about if they can afford Starbucks or evian water... lobster or caviar.... all they care about is that is what they WANT... and get it. They did not have to earn the money....

in my opinion, if that is what they are buying, then what they are getting is far to much.

I agree with some, I do wonder about those really in a hole though. Are they not able to understand limited resources? If one only has 200 or 300 bucks to get a family through the month for food, is buying junk food reasonable? Bottled water, in Chicago area, where the drinking water is well beyond the requirements for said bottled water?

why should they care? It is all allowed.... and that is THE FACTS about food stamps.

 

[Darkwind]

Wow, talk about hypocrisy. So what about people who do not receive section 8 and are on food stamps only? You're saying they should get MORE government assistance?

What hypocrisy are you talking about?

Now you want to change the conditions? Where are your vaunted stats about how many people who take food stamps also take section 8? Or how many people who take food stamps take OTHER government programs too? How many people get more than 1 program? More than a dozen?

Are they mutually exclusive, meaning if you get one, you can't get the others?

How old are your stats? I recall stories of people who have 2 kids making 50k a year getting food assistance.

You post stats, but you only go so far, and you NEVER ask the real questions.

Do you?

these were interesting links....


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOTYH5ItZv8"]Living off the Government - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB0ovI4sUD0"]How 2 live free off the government in 1+ minute! - YouTube[/ame]

How about it Billy?

Still say its anecdotal?

I found the second video very telling given that you gave Me a hard time about working 3 jobs and not having anyone to watch the kids....

According to this lady, she gets money for free day care..and she can split it with a friend who will allegedly 'watch' the kids......

This is NOT uncommon...

 

[Annie]

funny you should say that annie...

snap folks dont think twice about if they can afford Starbucks or evian water... lobster or caviar.... all they care about is that is what they WANT... and get it. They did not have to earn the money....

in my opinion, if that is what they are buying, then what they are getting is far to much.

I agree with some, I do wonder about those really in a hole though. Are they not able to understand limited resources? If one only has 200 or 300 bucks to get a family through the month for food, is buying junk food reasonable? Bottled water, in Chicago area, where the drinking water is well beyond the requirements for said bottled water?

why should they care? It is all allowed.... and that is THE FACTS about food stamps.

I understand that. Still reminds me of 12 year old with a two week allowance, that spends it 'all' in 1 day. The 12 year old though has parents that will continue to feed him/her and buy the necessities.

Parents though in charge of SNAP cards, purchasing junk instead of nutritious food purchases? No do overs for dependents.

 

[asterism]

The system is soooooo easily gamed.

TheDC Investigation: What I was able to buy with my food stamps | The Daily Caller

This is the problem, and it could be fixed. Why don't progressives want that?

The fix is already in place. The average income per household who receives SNAP is $733 per MONTH. The average recipient receives $133 per month, which is less than $1.25 per meal. That is what keeps the average recipient from abusing it.

Get it? Got it? Good.

Don't you mean the average claimed income? Who checks the validity of the income? What keeps an un married couple from claiming she only earns $800/mo when they are living off his $150k/mo job? Honesty?

Immie

Or the unemployed "single mom" of 4 who has lived with her boyfriend for 5 years? The guy makes six figures but she and her kids are on medicaid, the section 8 house lease is in her name, she has EBT, temporary cash assistance, and she drives "his" Mercedes. When I reported her, the investigation showed no fraud. She has no income that's reported and her boyfriend has no legal responsibility to provide for her or her kids.

She gets:

$700 per month in SNAP
$500 per month temporary cash assistance
$300 per month rent supplement (her boyfriend pays his uncle the other $1500 per month, yes that's allowed)
$600 per month in Medicaid
$700 per month unemployment

That's over $33K per year. A household of 6 doesn't live large on $100K or even $133K, but she doesn't need government assistance to survive. She uses it for luxuries. That $33K per year goes a long way towards their twice yearly cruises, her $730/month car lease, their Rolex collection (she has 2, he has 3), and their MasterCraft boat.

I learned of this situation when she demanded that I double her salary from $35K because in her words "I'm worth it and I can get just as much from welfare if I quit." I refused to give her the raise and she started slacking off to get fired. Later she told me that the only reason she took the job with me was so that she could make her case that she's not a welfare queen. She dared me to report her "because everything here is legal." I reported her, and as it turns out she's right. All this is completely legal.

The system is too easily gamed.