Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Frugal Living
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-04-2011, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,470 posts, read 16,321,772 times
Reputation: 6518

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
...Yes, I already knew this was another angle in the ongoing tirade against big government and illegal immigration. Let's try not to shame too many hungry children in the process.
Thanks Shaker. It's nice to bring things into perspective. How does pointing fingers at politicians help people who are in need of food?

I personally think that in light of the big population boom globally food insecurity may continue to be a problem. Regardless of who happens to be in office, people can lose their jobs for various reasons.

For example, whenever their skills are no longer needed, outsourcing of jobs, lack of demand for goods etc.

Personally I don't have kids. This was by choice and no it was not easy, I had to use painful and inconvenient birth control methods. I would have been easier and taken much less thought to just get pregnant.

But tons of people have 2-5 children and I guess they're kind of hoping their jobs would be around until their homes were paid for and the kids were grown up.

I don't think that's realistic, but tons of people do it. And I guess if people were realistic about their alternatives in the event of a job loss, then NOBODY would have any children.

At least in the US there's a support for families with children when they fall on hard times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2011, 09:39 PM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,852,227 times
Reputation: 4459
it doesn't even have to be really hard times from the looks of this:

New Food Stamp Rules

Assets are only considered when households contain a member who is over 60 or disabled and the gross income exceeds the low-income criteria. For more information about assets for people over 60 or disabled, click on “Who Uses SNAP/Food Stamps” and scroll toTable C - Asset Guidelines for Households with Members over 60 or Disabled. As of June 9, 2008, DTA no longer counts money in the bank, a car, retirement accounts, your home or other assets.

didn't know that.

or this:
Certain Iraqi and Afghan Non-Citizens Eligible for Short-Term Food Stamps
Certain Afghan and Iraqi non-citizens with special immigrant status and their family members may be eligible to receive SNAP/food stamps for a period of up to six months (for Afghans) or eight months (for Iraqis). After this period, they are subject to the five-year bar on receipt of SNAP/food stamps unless they are eligible for benefits under another qualified non-citizen status. (DTA Field Operations Memo 2008-26)


or this:
Disabled Non-citizens Receiving EAEDC may be Eligible for SNAP/Food Stamps


Certain qualified non-citizens may be eligible for SNAP/food stamps based on disability, regardless of date of entry into the U.S.

DTA has identified about 200 EAEDC recipients who are SSI certified (as disabled) but are not receiving SNAP/food stamps and sent them letters and a simplified application encouraging them to apply. Please encourage your clients who receive this mailing to follow through with the application process. If approved, they will be certified for 24 months.

encouraging non-citizens to apply?

who actually writes these laws? this is just for one state, massachusetts, pulled at random. i can't wait to see the other state rules.

Last edited by floridasandy; 05-04-2011 at 09:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2011, 11:53 PM
 
4,765 posts, read 3,709,888 times
Reputation: 3038
I would guess that these laws are written by people who cannot stand the thought of people going hungry in America, regardless of their ethnicity or country of origin. Given a choice, I would prefer my tax dollars go to feeding people than to many other things, including gold plated health care plans for the folks who are trying to repeal Medicare.

I just can't get all worked up about a program with a goal of feeding hungry people. I don't volunteer at shelters or food pantries, but if some portion of my taxes feeds people that is OK with me. Even if there is fraud or inefficiency built into the system. Using a program to feed the less fortunate as a lever to promote your political views or prove a point seems inappropriate.

Can the rules be improved? I am sure they can. Is there fraud? No doubt. I also think that taking advantage (fraud) of a program meant to feed hungry people is heinous. But, the overall premise is commendable and a cause I support. So, I would focus on weeding out the illegal recipients, not making political hay. When I am sitting around with a full belly, it gives me some small comfort knowing I might be helping feed someone with far less than myself.

Last edited by shaker281; 05-05-2011 at 01:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2011, 08:04 AM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,852,227 times
Reputation: 4459
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
I would guess that these laws are written by people who cannot stand the thought of people going hungry in America, regardless of their ethnicity or country of origin. Given a choice, I would prefer my tax dollars go to feeding people than to many other things, including gold plated health care plans for the folks who are trying to repeal Medicare.

I just can't get all worked up about a program with a goal of feeding hungry people. I don't volunteer at shelters or food pantries, but if some portion of my taxes feeds people that is OK with me. Even if there is fraud or inefficiency built into the system. Using a program to feed the less fortunate as a lever to promote your political views or prove a point seems inappropriate.

Can the rules be improved? I am sure they can. Is there fraud? No doubt. I also think that taking advantage (fraud) of a program meant to feed hungry people is heinous. But, the overall premise is commendable and a cause I support. So, I would focus on weeding out the illegal recipients, not making political hay. When I am sitting around with a full belly, it gives me some small comfort knowing I might be helping feed someone with far less than myself.

i would guess that these laws were written by people who didn't give a damn about the welfare of this country.

you have to remember these SAME people are the people who supported and continue to support the debasing of our currency, outsourcing of our jobs, and importation of cheap labor ALL AT THE SAME TIME, while DELIBERATELY OVERLOADING the social network system.

ask yourself, what happens when you overload a system?


how many TRILLIONS of dollars are now being spent and how do you think that is going to end?

look at the jobless claims today, for crying out loud. so instead of addressing the problems and fixing them, they are deliberately trying to load more people into the system.

i will agree with you 100% about the gold plated healthcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2011, 08:23 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,036,487 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I live in a house with four other people and to the Food Stamp beancounters, there are FOUR households here: one married couple sharing food together, and three unrelated individuals who buy, prepare, and consume food separately. (It is certainly possible and is quite common for a group of people sharing housing to also share food, but in this house, we do not.)
That's exactly what I said. There are rare occasions when a housing unit contains more than one household. An example would be room-mates/house-mates. That's two households in one housing unit. Each of them is eligible to apply for Food Stamps in their own name. Another example would be adult mother living with adult daughter and adult daughter's illegitimate child, plus adult daughter's free-loading boyfriend. That would be 3 separate households within one housing unit, and adult mother, adult daughter and free-loading boyfriend are each eligible to apply for Food Stamps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freemkt View Post
I think Pelosi was referring to the "multiplier" to describe additional spending driven by the initial purchase, not to suggest that $1 of Food Stamps somehow was purchasing more than $1 of food. For example, aggregate food spending supports additional spending associated with production, transportation, wholesaling, and retailing. When I go to a supermarket and purchase $100 of food, jobs are supported and wages are paid.
But that isn't true. When someone on Food Stamps purchases a nutritional necessity like a can of Pringle's Potato Chips for $1.65, the cost of production, transportation, wholesaling and retailing are included in the price of $1.65, which also includes the Labor Cost (and Labor Cost includes Wage Cost).

What Pelosi is suggesting is that someone on Food Stamps is using the Food Stamps to purchase raw materials or semi-finished goods and to rent a production facility and equipment to produce items or provide services.

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
i just copied a line from a chart in the first sentence because i am lazy, but i certainly hope that you are not denying that food stamps in america are at an all time high, nor that increased usage is detrimental to the economic health of the united states.
No, I was merely pointing out that couching the number of people on Food Stamps in terms of households at 44.2 Million actually hides the fact that those 44.2 Million Food Stamps support an average of 2.7 people per household and so there are some 120 Million people receiving the benefit of Food Stamps, which is more than 1/3 of the US population.

In other words, there are 120 Million people benefiting from Food Stamps, not 44.2 Million people, and again, 120 Million is 1/3 of the US population.

Or, put another way, 1 in 3 Americans benefit from Food Stamps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville View Post
I thought food stamps came on a Debit Card set up ?
They do.

About the first week of the month (like now) go shopping in the grunge part of your town, you know, where it smells bad and there's litter strewn everywhere. Invariably someone will approach you and offer to sell you Food Stamps, or while you are shopping they will offer to buy your groceries for you in exchange for cash.

For example two days ago in Kroger's I had maybe $30 of groceries and someone offered to buy them for me. They take my groceries through the line and pay for them, then I give them $15.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
I just can't get all worked up about a program with a goal of feeding hungry people.
But you aren't feeding hungry people, rather you are subsidizing, meaning you are paying their cable TV bill and their cell-phone bill so they can have cable TV and cell-phones; or you are buying their alcohol and cigarettes and weed and crack and lotto tickets.

I would also point out that it would be an absurd error most foul to automatically assume that people on Food Stamps are at the poverty level.

Food Stamps are a block grant program. That means every single county in the US gets the same amount of money for Food Stamps.

If you haven't figured it out, that means a "family" of 3 in in Urban County probably can't get Food Stamps unless they are at or below the poverty level because there are so many people in Ubran County who are receiving Food Stamps.

However, in Semi-Rural County, a family of four can earn $42,000 and get Food Stamps. Why?

Because that's how the system works: Spend It, or Lose It.

So if your county block grant is $5 Million/year, then you have to spend every single penny of that $5 Million and if that means giving Food Stamps to people who make $80,000 year, then that is what you do, because if you don't, then your $5 Million block grant will be reduced.

And if your block grant gets cut, that means you'll probably have to lay off employees in the county, and that will anger the unions and cause political problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:55 PM
 
4,765 posts, read 3,709,888 times
Reputation: 3038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
...But you aren't feeding hungry people, rather you are subsidizing, meaning you are paying their cable TV bill and their cell-phone bill so they can have cable TV and cell-phones; or you are buying their alcohol and cigarettes and weed and crack and lotto tickets.

I would also point out that it would be an absurd error most foul to automatically assume that people on Food Stamps are at the poverty level...
It would be as absurd to assume that all food stamp recipients are alcoholics or crack whores, as it would be to assume there is no fraud or waste.

I support eliminating the fraud, not passing judgment on an entire group of people with a single stroke. Fix the problem, rather than giving fools ammunition to abandon helping those in need. The problem is with using the extremes to characterize the majority.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I suspect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 06:41 AM
 
Location: "Daytonnati"
4,244 posts, read 7,136,384 times
Reputation: 3014
Food stamps are not the only food program. Two other big ones are the school lunch program and WIC.

If you add these and other food programs they are in the billions. $53 B in 2006, which was before the recession. So a lot of money goes to food programs.

Quote:
It would be as absurd to assume that all food stamp recipients are alcoholics or crack whores, as it would be to assume there is no fraud or waste.

I support eliminating the fraud, not passing judgment on an entire group of people with a single stroke. Fix the problem, rather than giving fools ammunition to abandon helping those in need. The problem is with using the extremes to characterize the majority.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle, I suspect.
Yeah, I agree.

And if you want to really "solve" the problem pay people enough so they dont fall in to the qualification ranges of these programs. The reasons these programs are growing is that incomes are declining, not so much because of fraud. Sorry truth.

Of course, you could say its up to the states and local governments and private charities to take care of their own, not the Feds. That could be a good ideological rationale to de-fund these food programs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 07:20 AM
 
12,867 posts, read 14,852,227 times
Reputation: 4459
mircea, you make some good points. the only thing i was trying to say was that you said that- It would be 44.2 Million households, not 44.2 Million people. Only one person per household can get Food Stamps.

44.2 million households at 1 person per household is 44.2 million people collecting foodstamps as they are distributed, right?

the simple point of all of this is that we have too many people on foodstamps and for the life of me i can't imagine why the government would be sending out letters to drum up new business for foodstamps, since we already have a bunch of people on them.

the government's PRIORTY should be to facilitate the growth of the private sector so that LESS people are on foodstamps, not MORE.

a stronger private sector is good for everybody because it puts more people in a position to be able to feed themselves AND pay taxes to the government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 08:20 AM
 
3,644 posts, read 10,905,735 times
Reputation: 5514
Quote:
Originally Posted by newenglandgirl View Post
I have stood in line many times behind folks with food stamp debit cards with several kids in tow and shopping carts loaded to the hilt with so much junk food it's deplorable. I mean, huge boxes of Doritos, crappy cookies, soda by the case, artificial drinks, sugar laden cereals, you name it. This is making sure children don't starve??? (I'm not even going to attempt to address trading or selling to buy alcohol and cigs, etc).

Food stamps should only be able to be used for real food items like meats, dairy and fresh produce. Period. If people want to pig out on ice cream let them pay for it out of pocket. If real food were the limit, the Fed could issue far less in benefits per household. Now, who in the Fed would ever think of that...
Posted by someone who doesn't cook or do their own shopping, obviously. "Real food" is more expensive than processed food. Also, while you're limiting this, will you also limit what grade meat they can purchase? How about quantities?

Poor children and their single mother who lost her job, then got left by her husband with any support, don't need much. I mean, why let those kids have a can of Pringles? A dry, baked potato is healthier for them. Why allow any of those kids to have a juice box in their lunch? (Thermos' and recyclable water containers cost money) Why not give them an apple instead and tell them they can ONLY have tap water to drink, plus an 8 oz (measure carefully moms!) glass of milk with their dinner. We could save MILLIONS by telling Food Stamp moms what exactly to buy.

Gas to get to grocery stores, costs money. Gas stations do not accept EBT cards.

There is fraud within the system. I think everyone cringes when they see someone buy steaks and shrimp, soda, etc with an EBT card. But to begrudge a poor child, who has nothing and their parents, so broke they have to accept food stamps just to feed them, an occasional scoop of ice cream or $3 bag of Doritos shows a total lack of understanding of those who are going through temporary rough times.

Oh - and the food stamp program does limit assets, here in TX. For instance, if you are self employed and not eligible for unemployment, can't find a job, the bills are piling up and 8 months in, you run out of money - you can get food stamps (here in TX, $668/month for a family of 4). But because you financed a car worth $25k 1 year prior (that you're upside down in) you are not eligible for the less than $400/month that is the max for a family of four. Yes, poor folks need cash - toilet paper isn't free, believe it or not. While you can get reduced utilities (not free, not here in TX), you still have to pay the water bill, the phone bill, the electric bill and the cat that you've had for 13 years still needs to eat. Those children's feet don't stop growing because you're poor now and if your kids go to a public school with mandatory uniforms, and have a growth spurt - there are NOT uniform pieces available in May for the next size up just laying around, waiting for you to get them for free or for a low cost.

I too thought harshly of those that attempt to sell their food stamps. But they're not all doing it because they want liquor. There are OTHER reasons to need cash than to buy liquor or cigarettes. Not ALL poor people are looking to commit fraud to feed an addiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2011, 10:53 AM
 
Location: Ohio
24,624 posts, read 19,036,487 times
Reputation: 21728
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281 View Post
It would be as absurd to assume that all food stamp recipients are alcoholics or crack whores, as it would be to assume there is no fraud or waste.
You're missing the point. I understand people have hard times, sometimes through no fault of their own, but I'm not going to subsidize people's life-styles, which is exactly what I'm forced to do.

If someone comes to me and says they need $200 to buy food, okay, but I'm not going to give them $200 so they can have internet, cell-phones, cable TV and NetFlix, which is exactly what I'm being forced to do.

None of those things are necessities in life. You see it through rose-colored glasses as helping people, I see it as subsidizing other people's life-styles, when I don't have cable/satellite and I don't have a cell-phone plan and I don't get DVDs from NetFlix, because I can't afford them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by floridasandy View Post
44.2 million households at 1 person per household is 44.2 million people collecting foodstamps as they are distributed, right?
But it hides the fact that 1 in 3 people benefit from Food Stamps.

Phrasing it in terms of households makes it appear that only 14 out of 100 are receiving Food Stamps.

I suppose if people knew there were 114 Million households, it might make sense, because that would still be 1 in 3 households (but we already knew that).

Quote:
Originally Posted by sskkc View Post
Posted by someone who doesn't cook or do their own shopping, obviously. "Real food" is more expensive than processed food.
No it isn't. I shop 3-4 times per week and spend $140-$150/month and I eat bone-in Ribeyes, Chilean Sea Bass, Sea Scallops, shrimp, chicken. It's stupid to pay $1.29 for a can of green-beans, when I can buy green-beans at the market for $0.23 and cook them exactly the way I want them and not have any left-overs (unless I want left-overs).

I buy whole chickens at $0.88/pound. It takes me all of 60 seconds to cut up a chicken into two wings, two legs, two boneless thighs and two boneless breasts, plus parts for chicken broth/stock/soups/stews/gravies/sauces.

Why should I pay $6.99/pound for boneless chicken breasts?

People are just not smart with their money, poor shoppers and kitchen morons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sskkc View Post
I too thought harshly of those that attempt to sell their food stamps. But they're not all doing it because they want liquor. There are OTHER reasons to need cash than to buy liquor or cigarettes. Not ALL poor people are looking to commit fraud to feed an addiction.
Fraud is fraud. It doesn't matter why you are selling Food Stamps, it is illegal to convert them for any use other than as Food Stamps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics > Frugal Living
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top