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.
This thread has gone way off target. My original premise was whether it was a good idea to load SNAP benefits early, and tell recipients to budget to make it last for more than a month, since no more would be loaded until March, and maybe not even then if the shutdown isn't over by then. The reason that I don't think it is a good idea to load more than a month's benefit at a time is that the recipients of SNAP benefits are often in need because they are not good at budgeting. The evidence for this is, as those who work in supermarkets know, is the large number of recipients who spend the bulk, if not the entirety, of their benefit as soon as the card is loaded.
I think we should quit micromanaging and give the poor the cash equivalent of SNAP benefits, if they don't buy food with the money they will go hungry, if they don't feed their kids the schools will likely call CPS and they will lose their kids. Why do some people feel that we have to treat the poor like imbeciles incapable of managing their lives?
Well, the simple fact is that many poor people ARE "imbeciles" when it comes to managing their lives.
(Before I go any further, as I think I have made clear dozens of times, I certainly don't think the above applies to ALL poor people, but I think it certainly does to quite a few of them. Of course, middle-class and rich people often make stupid decisions when it comes to managing their lives, too -- but not very many of them go hungry.)
The simple fact is that many adults are terrible parents, and their kids would suffer even more if money was just given to their parents to use as they wish. Right now there are nearly 450,000 children in foster care, and if what you propose is adopted as policy, I suspect that that figure would go up even more.
And I'd say that many have smartphones, big screen tvs and the women have expensive hair weaves or extensions and fake fingernails. They also have many children that they can't afford to raise also.
At least with food banks, they are handing out healthier foods than if these SNAP recipients were let loose with their EBT cards. At least, the food banks aren't handing out junk foods.
I'd much rather there be food banks for SNAP recipients, than let them shop with an EBT card.
And I'd say you get your information off of tv
First, this is just in Philly, most places that do what we call a Beyonce weave cost more than they could possibly get from welfare or food stamps. A good sew in is easy 3k. And yes I know because my sister in law has her own shop. the Hair alone is 2-300 a pack.
Press on nail? 8 bucks cvs
Smart phones?? My clients usually have pay as you go trac phones, generally nice phones and but by the end of the month they are out of minutes.
I agree with the children but again the mindset is different.
Let me add also that my clients are not sitting at home waiting for the government to take care of them. all are working (which is a requirement for my organization) and the majority are working 2 jobs.
Last edited by eliza61nyc; 01-23-2019 at 11:31 AM..
This thread has gone way off target. My original premise was whether it was a good idea to load SNAP benefits early, and tell recipients to budget to make it last for more than a month, since no more would be loaded until March, and maybe not even then if the shutdown isn't over by then. The reason that I don't think it is a good idea to load more than a month's benefit at a time is that the recipients of SNAP benefits are often in need because they are not good at budgeting. The evidence for this is, as those who work in supermarkets know, is the large number of recipients who spend the bulk, if not the entirety, of their benefit as soon as the card is loaded.
Given the limited number of scenarios of how this plays out paying early was the most appropriate because it’s possible if they didn’t the families would get nothing next month. They may already be out of money by then but it’s on them vs not paying out at all.
First, this is just in Philly, most places that do what we call Beyonce weave cost more than they could possibly get from welfare or food stamps. A good sew in is easy 3k. That's a bunch of bull. And yes I know because my sister in law has her own shop. Hair alone is 2-300 a pack.
Press on nail? 8 bucks cvs
Smart phones?? My clients have pay as you go trac phones, generally nice phones and but by the end of the month they are out of minutes.
I agree with the children but again the mindset is different.
8$ for press on nails when you are on public assistance is 8$ wasted.
Well, the simple fact is that many poor people ARE "imbeciles" when it comes to managing their lives.
(Before I go any further, as I think I have made clear dozens of times, I certainly don't think the above applies to ALL poor people, but I think it certainly does to quite a few of them.)
The simple fact is that many adults are terrible parents, and their kids would suffer even more if money was just given to their parents to use as they wish. Right now there are nearly 450,000 children in foster care, and if what you propose is adopted as policy, I suspect that that figure would go up even more.
Of course some people are horrible parents but giving them a card to buy food with doesn't make them less horrible, it just gives them fewer chances to make rational choices if they choose to. I will give you an example. A young woman with two kids in Reno gets $383 in TANF cash every month. She also gets around $515 in SNAP benefits. At the time (2013-2014) she could rent a monthly motel room for $500-$600 a month. It wasn't fancy but it beat sleeping on the street. With $383 cash she would still need $117 to pay $500 rent. Assuming that she no other source of money, she sells $234 of SNAP benefits @ 50 cents on the dollar for the $117 to pay the rent. And that leaves her with nothing for diapers, laundromat costs, bus transportation, clothes or other necessities, so she would sell $400 in SNAP in order to have a few dollars for necessities. That left her with a little over $100 in SNAP benefits. Had she been given cash instead of SNAP she would have had $398 left after paying her rent. Do the math yourself and see which makes more sense.
The women I worked with were not drug addicts, alcoholics or prostitutes, most were very young, poorly educated and ended up alone with their kids because of domestic violence.
I acknowledge that some people truly suck at being parents but do we make them better parents by treating them like idiot children?
And I'd say that many have smartphones, big screen tvs and the women have expensive hair weaves or extensions and fake fingernails. They also have many children that they can't afford to raise also.
At least with food banks, they are handing out healthier foods than if these SNAP recipients were let loose with their EBT cards. At least, the food banks aren't handing out junk foods.
I'd much rather there be food banks for SNAP recipients, than let them shop with an EBT card.
So would you suggest that military families be prohibited from doing a major shopping on payday and having their money doled out to them, or do you only suggest that we only do that with the poor?
Sweetened beverages, including soda, are among the most commonly purchased items by recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. About 10% of food budget for many recipients.
Candy, cookies, cakes, ice cream, ... all can be purchased with EBT cards
Given the diet related diseases that can develop and the cost to treat them, some pilot programs have incentivized people to purchase healthy items by adding 30% of the cost of the healthy items such as fruits, vegetables, its, whole grains, and fish back on to their card.
It preserves choice but nudges people towards healthy diets and potentially saving billions in health care costs.
Of course some people are horrible parents but giving them a card to buy food with doesn't make them less horrible, it just gives them fewer chances to make rational choices if they choose to. I will give you an example. A young woman with two kids in Reno gets $383 in TANF cash every month. She also gets around $515 in SNAP benefits. At the time (2013-2014) she could rent a monthly motel room for $500-$600 a month. It wasn't fancy but it beat sleeping on the street. With $383 cash she would still need $117 to pay $500 rent. Assuming that she no other source of money, she sells $234 of SNAP benefits @ 50 cents on the dollar for the $117 to pay the rent. And that leaves her with nothing for diapers, laundromat costs, bus transportation, clothes or other necessities, so she would sell $400 in SNAP in order to have a few dollars for necessities. That left her with a little over $100 in SNAP benefits. Had she been given cash instead of SNAP she would have had $398 left after paying her rent. Do the math yourself and see which makes more sense.
The women I worked with were not drug addicts, alcoholics or prostitutes, most were very young, poorly educated and ended up alone with their kids because of domestic violence.
I acknowledge that some people truly suck at being parents but do we make them better parents by treating them like idiot children?
What would have happened if someone had been caught using her EBT card?
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.
