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.
So the solution to address fraud is across the board cuts to punish innocent people, what percentage does fraud constitute, $1B, $3B? Maybe they should go after people abusing the program?
So the solution to address fraud is across the board cuts to punish innocent people, what percentage does fraud constitute, $1B, $3B? Maybe they should go after people abusing the program?
The solution is to end such programs since the government has no incentive to police them effectively, not to mention the immoral way such programs are funded in the first place ( theft).
I honestly don't see this as an issue. The increase was suppose to be temporary.
I agree with Ponderosa (loved their sundae's when I was a kid BTW) that they should also end the Bush era tax cuts. We need to get back to normal. The economy is recovering and $36 isn't going to make or break family meal planning. People will adjust.
And FWIW, a few people in my family are on foodstamps (my brother and his wife and their 2 kids, my aunt, and a cousin or two). And I still don't have an issue with them scaling it back to previous levels. The only issue I had was this:
I don't think that people who don't have dependents but who make a VERY small income should be denied access to the SNAP program because they need to eat too. My aunt is in her 50s and gets about $130 a month in food stamps. She makes less than $1000 a month and SNAP is a big assistance to her so I would not like to see her punished just because she is a single person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lycos679
Cutting food stamps back to pre recession levels isn't really that unreasonable. The program was expanded 3 times since 2002, so a small cut (5%) is probably something most of us can live with. The family of 4 can still get up to $632 each month and they can still buy pizza. Besides, this is primarily going to effect the southern states and those people can stand to lose a lot of weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
The amount was increased under Obama's stimulus plan. They are just reverting back to what it was before.
This was a temporary increase that is now going away.
$36 a month is hardly a "deep cut" and SNAP is supplemental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
$9 a week is the end of the world ?
Sounds like when that temporary FICA tax kicked back in and $12 a week was the end of the world.
Its a 13.6% cut not just 36$. Lot of people have failed math class obviously.
and this is ubiquitous??? I am so distrusting of the Ayn Rand worshipping representatives and media, that I would not put it past these jerks to place the ads themselves...ANYONE can anonymously place ads on Craigslist.
The solution is to end such programs since the government has no incentive to police them effectively, not to mention the immoral way such programs are funded in the first place ( theft).
I know it's tempting but you can't end them because many of the working poor need this. But government has to police this because many abuse it. I just don't understand why they don't. So many of these programs are abused and we all can see this. And I think some of us even know a few that do.
I know it's tempting but you can't end them because many of the working poor need this. But government has to police this because many abuse it. I just don't understand why they don't. So many of these programs are abused and we all can see this. And I think some of us even know a few that do.
Yes you can end them. Working poor? People have cars, a/c, cable tv,cell phones, internet access, and enough left over for booze, smokes whatever.Time to give up some luxuries and prioritize if you need to eat and if you still cant manage there are charitable services for those really in need. I know because I happen to volunteer for one.
The role of the fed guv is not to define who the haves and the have nots are, nor is it its job to steal from the haves and hand out to those it thinks are deserving ( vote purchasing).
Yes you can end them. Working poor? People have cars, a/c, cable tv,cell phones, internet access, and enough left over for booze, smokes whatever. Time to give up some luxuries and prioritize if you need to eat and if you still cant manage there are charitable services for those really in need. I know because I happen to volunteer for one.
The role of the fed guv is not to define who the haves and the have nots are, nor is it its job to steal from the haves and hand out to those it thinks are deserving ( vote purchasing).
But not all of them have those luxuries. And yes it is the governments responsibility since they send the checks.
But not all of them have those luxuries. And yes it is the governments responsibility since they send the checks.
It is not its responsibility to run such a program in the first place and it is immoral to do so.
Most do have those luxuries, you cannot prove otherwise.
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.
As the point sails over your head
