Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, definitely hard to 'take away' something that was given for free.
I'm sure some people need these things....but I'm sure there are a ton getting 'free food' that are buying non essentials too.
What I saw that they spend the food stamps in the first couple weeks anyway (or trade for cash, drugs, etc.) and then go to the food pantries the last two weeks. The kids already get free breakfast and lunch at school. If they shopped like the working poor not getting assistance, they could make a month's worth of food stamps last at least 6 weeks. I can't tell you how many times I have heard someone say that when they received food stamps, they were able to eat better and buy more than they usually did.
Some of these are pros at playing the sympathy of the charities so the charities will probably be buying and begging to pick up the slack.
id imagine they would benefit more by removing many people from the program than from a benefit cut. a benefit cut will just force people to shop a little smarter or eat less. removing people will give incentive for them to earn the money themselves. so just cutting 1-3% may help the budget a bit and hurt the economy a tiny bit.
They could do both. For people under age 70 or 80, it should be temporary assistance, limited to a month or two, or cut over time so no one just goes on for years on it. Once kids are getting all those free meals in schools and head start, the food stamps should be cut back. Limiting purchases to a few basics would help immensely and eliminating all the duplication would also. Why give both WIC and food stamps? And again once the kids are being fed in svhool, no need for food stamps for those kids.
They could do both. For people under age 70 or 80, it should be temporary assistance, limited to a month or two, or cut over time so no one just goes on for years on it. Once kids are getting all those free meals in schools and head start, the food stamps should be cut back. Limiting purchases to a few basics would help immensely and eliminating all the duplication would also. Why give both WIC and food stamps? And again once the kids are being fed in svhool, no need for food stamps for those kids.
For infants, those who are for whatever reason not breastfed, WIC provides formula. If that same formula were purchased with food stamps it would suck up almost all the household's monthly benefit amount just to feed one baby.
WIC not only provides certain food items but also serves as a way to monitor kids and pregnant women for anemia and provide nutritional education and food safety education.
Are you also proposing an increase for those same families, during summer break, spring break, and winter break, when there is no school feeding them?
Also, kids don't get dinner at school and when they are older, the amount they get in school for lunch is often the same serving size as elementary kids get. My 15 year old always came home RAVENOUS from school whereas the 10 year old was fine, because they were getting the exact same serving sizes.
Now, I have always thought that food stamp benefit amounts should be based not only on household size but the age of the kid. I got food stamps when my oldest son (21 now) was a toddler and always had leftover at the end of the month, but someone feeding a teen on that same amount would be struggling.
Finally, food stamps ARE time limited for able bodied adults without children. They are limited to receiving SNAP for a max of 3 months out of every 3 years unless they meet work requirements. For those with children, there are work / work search requirements once the kids are a certain age (usually six).
As with Unemployment Compensation and General Assistance itself, the purported "Republican attack" isn't so much on the program as upon its unnecessary centralization and concentration in the power-seeking hands of professional functionaries, bureaucrats and (pseudo-) administrators, all of whom have no incentive whatsoever to ease the burden upon the responsible taxpayer by "weeding out" those who abuse the program on a regular basis.
Are you also proposing an increase for those same families, during summer break, spring break, and winter break, when there is no school feeding them?
We're in the same city, so if you know anyone who depends on the free breakfast and lunch for their kids, there are some summer locations for free breakfast and lunch, some of the schools offer it, and the city pools are offering free lunch and snack to kids under 18.
It is a good point though, that the kids have to eat even when there's no school. When you see kids have a huge growth spurt about a month after school starts, that's usually because they haven't been getting enough food at home and the extra meals at school are making the difference.
For infants, those who are for whatever reason not breastfed, WIC provides formula. If that same formula were purchased with food stamps it would suck up almost all the household's monthly benefit amount just to feed one baby.
WIC not only provides certain food items but also serves as a way to monitor kids and pregnant women for anemia and provide nutritional education and food safety education.
Are you also proposing an increase for those same families, during summer break, spring break, and winter break, when there is no school feeding them?
Also, kids don't get dinner at school and when they are older, the amount they get in school for lunch is often the same serving size as elementary kids get. My 15 year old always came home RAVENOUS from school whereas the 10 year old was fine, because they were getting the exact same serving sizes.
Now, I have always thought that food stamp benefit amounts should be based not only on household size but the age of the kid. I got food stamps when my oldest son (21 now) was a toddler and always had leftover at the end of the month, but someone feeding a teen on that same amount would be struggling.
Finally, food stamps ARE time limited for able bodied adults without children. They are limited to receiving SNAP for a max of 3 months out of every 3 years unless they meet work requirements. For those with children, there are work / work search requirements once the kids are a certain age (usually six).
One out of seven on food stamps is too many. Maybe the able bodied should work to support their kids, two working for minimum wage is $15 an hour family income and with all the birth control methods, why not wait until you can afford kids before you start having them?
We're in the same city, so if you know anyone who depends on the free breakfast and lunch for their kids, there are some summer locations for free breakfast and lunch, some of the schools offer it, and the city pools are offering free lunch and snack to kids under 18.
It is a good point though, that the kids have to eat even when there's no school. When you see kids have a huge growth spurt about a month after school starts, that's usually because they haven't been getting enough food at home and the extra meals at school are making the difference.
They do that where I live because so many sell their food stamps or otherwise misuse them so the schools feed the kids yesr round. I think they should just do that and cut off all food stamps to the young and able bodied.
One out of seven on food stamps is too many. Maybe the able bodied should work to support their kids, two working for minimum wage is $15 an hour family income and with all the birth control methods, why not wait until you can afford kids before you start having them?
Two working for minimum wage is $30,160 per year. That's below 133% FPL for a family of four. And if both parents work, then part of that $30,160 is going to go for childcare. That doesn't leave a lot of money for housing, utilities, transportation and food. Could you support yourself and three other people on $30,160 a year?
Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $10 or $12 an hour. People always complain about the working poor who still need food stamps. Perhaps what we should be complaining about instead is employers who pay so little that their full-time employees can't feed themselves and their families.
<snip>
Maybe we should raise the minimum wage to $10 or $12 an hour. People always complain about the working poor who still need food stamps. Perhaps what we should be complaining about instead is employers who pay so little that their full-time employees can't feed themselves and their families.
Yes, and along with that, and I have said this before but I will say it again; with so many SNAP recipients being single parents, maybe we should try a little harder to enforce court ordered child support consistently and in this way, reduce the number of families depending on SNAP or at least reduce the amount they get (if the custodial parent is actually receiving child support, he/she gets less SNAP benefits). Some states do better than others but many have absolutely atrocious track records with regard to collecting child support payments at all.
I was born in 71, and my mother became a single mom in 78. She worked typically "low wage" jobs and had 2 kids and a mortgage, but aside from a handful of times I remember getting "government cheese", she was able to afford the basics. The big difference? My father, with all of his many many faults, NEVER missed a child support payment. Ever. That was the difference between our family and some of the friends I had in school who were from divorced homes and lived on a steady diet of beans and rice and had torn up clothes, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
One out of seven on food stamps is too many. Maybe the able bodied should work to support their kids, two working for minimum wage is $15 an hour family income and with all the birth control methods, why not wait until you can afford kids before you start having them?
Around 40% of SNAP recipients are working. That's why they are called the working poor; they work and still qualify for SNAP because their pay is that bad.
In most cases, there is one person supporting kids, not two. Almost half of SNAP recipients are kids. Almost two-thirds of those kids are in single parent households. Believe the myths all you want but most of those single parents didn't plan it that way. Life happens. Crap happens. People start out financially fine with regard to having children and then spouses die, divorces happen, people walk out on their responsibilities, job hours are cut, lay-offs take place and the next job doesn't pay enough, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute
They do that where I live because so many sell their food stamps or otherwise misuse them so the schools feed the kids yesr round. I think they should just do that and cut off all food stamps to the young and able bodied.
No, they do that because the supplemental assistance provided via SNAP is not always enough, when combined with low wages, or during a period of unemployment or reduction in hours, to feed children in a household without some other safety net. It's called "piecing things together" and it's reality for many Americans. Yes, WORKING Americans.
Again with the young and able bodied; they are limited currently to 3 months in a 36 month period.
Take a moment, please, to gain some factual knowledge vs what you just assume or "think" to be true based on one person you met or something you saw.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
