Exchange Our Food Stamp Program for Welfare Stores? (salary, generations, drugs)
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.
Recently there was a welfare fraud bust in a nearby rural small town. The entire investigation went on for over a year before the cops rolled up and arrested the store owners and employees who were selling welfare recipients illegal products, and paying 70-cents on the dollar for SNAP cards. I'd like to know what this Big Bust cause the taxpayers, but nobody is admitting anything. I'm sure the bill is much higher than the actual fraud.
The welfare system is too easily scammed. So, why do we continue to use it.
I'd like to hear some ideas on how people would change it. We all complain about it, but never offer solutions.
My idea would be to do away with our current welfare cards. Build a Welfare Store in every neighborhood that needs one. Similar to Sam's Club, only a welfare recipient can enter and shop there. Stock these Welfare Stores with only approved goods (no beer or tobacco products). All Welfare Stores must keep their computers up-to-date with local recipient names and how much welfare money they have in their account. Nobody but the recipient can access those accounts, and yes, proof of identity will be a must every time they shop. A photo ID only. Welfare recipients can only shop in their local Welfare Stores where their names are on file. Any recipient that doesn't like that can go to work and earn the privilege of shopping wherever they want to shop.
What do you all think? Good idea? Bad? Feel free to post your thoughts and solutions. America is not about to let people starve to death, so please let's save the "Cut 'em all off welfare" arguments for another thread.
Your idea would be bad. It would thus eliminate many jobs in the private sector and thus replace with govt jobs where the workers would then be next to impossible to fire. There STILL would be fraud and theft, but mainly via employees.
Sugar Subsidies which are separate and that's another $1.7 billion-$3.5 billion per year, plus sugar costs 30% more than it should in the US due to the subsidies/tariffs, and the consumer is indirectly paying for this in higher cost of any product containing sugar. Most of the sugar farmers are wealthy. They give lots of money to political campaigns.
Article about sugar subsidies, with mention of Marco Rubio. Note that some of the large sugar farms are in south Florida. They are a massive wealthy group - the sugar farmers. They are referred to as Big Sugar. They give so much to politicians that they pretty much control them.
But why do some Americans continue to focus on the extremely poor and disabled getting food stamps and ignore these farm and sugar subsidies that continue year after year? This is what is called Corporate Welfare. Is this because Corporate Welfare hires lobbiests and because they use some of the Corporate Welfare to buy politicians, thus silence them? So the lemmings instead attack poor and disables Americans that are getting food stamps.
In America there's a very strange need for us to want our poor people to appear both poor and miserable. If you're 'poor' by definition (i.e. anyone participating in any sort of government assistance program), there's a general consensus that you should not dress well or be seen to have nice things. It's this sort of mentality that fails to realize that most middle-income Americans are just a few paychecks, a job or a chronic illness away from SNAP themselves. And, when it happens, you may still retain those vestiges of 'wealth', which appear to enrage so many.
Quoted to underscore. I do wonder why so many people think everyone receiving public assistance should dress in rags, drive beat-up cars, and eat dried peas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
We are discussing the fraud committed by some. Fraud is an expense to the taxpayers. We have every right to discuss a means of lessening the fraud without hurting the recipients.
Fraud is such a teeny, tiny part of the welfare budget. It's not worth getting worked up about.
Quote:
Someone brought up the issue of toiletries and other non-food items. I'm sorry, but what makes you think the taxpayer should pay for everything? There are many ways of making enough money to buy those extras -- raking leaves, shoveling driveways, walking dogs, washing cars, etc. The taxpayer shouldn't be expected to take care of all needs and wants of people who won't lift a finger to help themselves. If we make welfare too comfortable to be on, everyone will want to be on it.
Do you really want to force someone who's older or who as a chronic illness to shovel a driveway to make a few bucks? LMAO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Javacoffee
Many churches offer the extras that government doesn't. Food banks are just one way. How many of us give the food banks a buck or two every time we grocery shop? I'll wager a guess that most of us do, so long as were not hurting ourselves.
Food banks don't generally buy toiletries, and food pantries rely on donations. So there goes that theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whocares811
I volunteered at a Denver area food bank for over a year, and I would say that only about 5% of our clientele needed the food because of bad luck that could happen to anyone.
Well, I was on staff at a large regional food bank for more than five years, and more than half of our clients were working poor. Their plights were similar - they had to replace the furnace, and didn't have money left over for food. The kids need to go to the doctor, they didn't have money left over for food. Their car broke down -- the car they rely on to get to work -- they don't have money left over for food. And so on.
The working poor WORK. What part of that do you not understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace
How about weekly food boxes delivered? Every household is given a free cookbook and enough ingredients to feed the members of their household.
That would increase waste and fraud. People won't eat food they don't like. So they'll either throw it away, which is horrible, or they'll sell it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
And before you try to cite the mantra that "people on welfare are working", might I remind you of the link that I provided that showed that 70% had NO earned income. None.
Well, I was on staff at a large regional food bank for more than five years, and more than half of our clients were working poor. Their plights were similar - they had to replace the furnace, and didn't have money left over for food. The kids need to go to the doctor, they didn't have money left over for food. Their car broke down -- the car they rely on to get to work -- they don't have money left over for food. And so on.
The working poor WORK. What part of that do you not understand?
I am sure that different food banks have different clientele. I also don't think anyone here has said ANYTHING against the WORKING poor. Or do you have a problem with reading comprehension?
Also, one of the things I had against the food bank I volunteered for was that most of the staff's salaries exceeded the monetary donations we received from the general public. Again, perhaps it was different where you worked?
And I also don't think anyone deserves kudos for getting a salary that depends mostly on government subsidies and voluntary contributions (whether in food, money or time), so in my opinion, people who profit from the poor deserve more of my scorn than my praise. But, of course, that is just my opinion.
Last edited by katharsis; 01-22-2016 at 08:00 PM..
Okay, let's get something straight. The average full-time U.S. worker contributes about $744.00 to SNAP and TANF, according to the information I received. The links from which I gathered this information are below, but if anyone wants to dispute the numbers or links, feel free. Unlike some people, I AM willing to be corrected with factual information.
In short, there are approximately 122.3 million full-time workers, and approximately $17 billion is spent yearly on TANF and approximately $74 billion on SNAP. $91 billion divided by 122.3 million is about $744.00.
Now if you add the number of part-time workers, that figure will, of course, decrease, but the part-time workers contribution is also less, of course. So, unless someone can provide different links and figures -- and, to repeat, I would certainly welcome new and more accurate info -- to say that the average worker contributes less than $50 (let alone $13 or even less as at least one poster has claimed), I think is ridiculous -- but, again, if I am proven to be mistaken, I will willingly admit it and apologize.
Also, one of the things I had against the food bank I volunteered for was that most of the staff's salaries exceeded the monetary donations we received from the general public. Again, perhaps it was different where you worked?
And I also don't think anyone deserves kudos for getting a salary that depends mostly on government subsidies and voluntary contributions (whether in food, money or time), so in my opinion, you deserve more of my scorn than my praise. But, of course, that is just my opinion.
Just pointing out that my experience puts me in a little better position to know how food banks work and who needs their services than does your volunteer work. While you certainly should be commended for volunteering, that doesn't give you any great insight to food banks and their clients.
As for your scorn for people who work for a living -- would you rather they be unemployed, go on welfare, and become clients of the food bank? What a joke.
Oh, and if the staff's salaries truly did exceed the donations, that place you volunteered with isn't going to be in business for very long. Sounds like a mismanagement problem, not an employee problem.
Just pointing out that my experience puts me in a little better position to know how food banks work and who needs their services than does your volunteer work. While you certainly should be commended for volunteering, that doesn't give you any great insight to food banks and their clients.
As for your scorn for people who work for a living -- would you rather they be unemployed, go on welfare, and become clients of the food bank? What a joke.
Oh, and if the staff's salaries truly did exceed the donations, that place you volunteered with isn't going to be in business for very long. Sounds like a mismanagement problem, not an employee problem.
First, I didn't say that I scorn people who work for a living, just how some people MAKE their living. I do, however, have more respect for a person who collects trash for a living than someone who depends on the poor continuing to be poor for their livelihood. (And, no, I am not just referring to food bank executives but anyone who profits from keeping poor people poor.)
Second, the food bank I volunteered for was non-profit, so unless I misunderstood something, they did not have to make a profit to stay "in business." And that is exactly what it was -- a business, even if it was also a charity.
Oh, and finally, I did several different things as a volunteer including interviewing clients and filing the client information forms, so although I am sure that I do not know as many statistics as you do -- and, no, I am certainly not being sarcastic at all, but am being very serious -- I did learn enough to know that the great majority of our clients were poor because of their choices and not because of the kind of bad luck that anyone could have. (And, to be clear, I have made plenty of bad choices in my life, also, as most people do, but I learned from them.) Again, this certainly does not apply to all the poor I encountered, and I will say it again that I willingly admit that your experience might be very different from mine.
P.S. on Edit: I am sorry that I became a little "heated" in the above. I do realize that food banks are valuable and do provide a needed service, and I also realize that someone needs to run them and run them efficiently. I just become angered when I see how much SOME staff members of these food banks make, and I just think that someone who is "on welfare" or underpaid -- or a senior citizen that can no longer obtain any kind of meaningful job -- would be willing to take on a staff position for half the salary of what SOME food bank staff members make, and this would have the added benefit of REALLY helping someone who truly needs the job (and who would also be more sympathetic to the plight of the poor than someone who has always been "middle class".) Oh, and also just btw, I am not just "picking on" food bank paid employees, but on anyone who gets rich by working for charities. (And, no, I am NOT saying that local food bank directors and employees are actually rich; this last statement was directed to CEO's of major charities, such as the American Red Cross, whose CEO salary is $500,000. To give another example, the CEO of the World Wildlife Fund gets over $800,000 a year, according tot the following:
But, again, I just don't think that the executive CEO of a local food bank who services about 120-150 people/families a week should earn a salary of close to $100,000 and need a paid staff of six other "middle class" workers. I think the money would be much better spent if it were used to REALLY improve the lives of 40 or more people/families. But, again, that is just my opinion.
Last edited by katharsis; 01-22-2016 at 09:01 PM..
Very very good question. First time I've seen it asked.
The biggest thing we should be trying to fix is that our government is broke and needs to reign in it's spending, because what we are doing now is not sustainable and we are going to ruin our economy and our ability to have a safety net at all if we don't take steps to balance our budget.
Welfare, TANF, foodstamps, etc, don't actually take much out of the federal budget. And welfare fraud takes even less out of the budget. Any savings we get from reducing welfare fraud would be eaten up by the costs of trying to reduce welfare fraud. I think this line of thinking is trying to squeeze blood out of a rock.
The big big big money handouts in the budget are social security, medicare, Medicaid. Smaller handouts that are still substantial are corporate welfare, and the other forms of government assistance that isn't food (such as housing, daycare/preschool, college tuition, etc). The amount of money the federal government spends on FEEDING the poor is negligible. We need to work on all that other crap.
Sooo, oh wise, OP, what are your ideas for reducing spending on social security, medicare, and Medicaid? Because that is what is actually needing to be fixed. Especially Medicare and Medicaid. Public hospital system, which functions like the public school system? Paid for by government and free for all? Supplemented by private hospitals for those who can afford them?
Here we go again. It's not the non-producers (generations after generations of welfare recipients) bankrupting us, it's the producers. Give me a break.
Those who support this monstrous albatross always repeat the fable that it's not costing taxpayers money. Really? Let's see...monthly SNAP benefit ("food stamps"), monthly cash benefit (all of which can be allowed to accrue from month to month), monthly daycare allowance, monthly heating and cooling allowance, WIC (not just milk and cheese anymore), coupons for farmers markets produce, monthly housing allowance, transportation to medical appointments, "Baby Love" program, etc., etc., etc. That's what's breaking the bank.
Some people do need assistance. Tighten requirements, chuck the EBT card, and return to stamps. It worked once; it will work again.
Oh, and BTW...Social Security and Medicare are not handouts.Although there are no shortage of socialists at the federal and state level who would like the uninformed to THINK that they are, so that seniors' pockets can continue to be picked to accommodate the welfare bloat.
It doesn't matter how hard it is. Life is hard. You are not entitled to other people's money because you had 2 little kids with a deadbeat.
What a peachy attitude to have! No blame for the deadbeat male at all, huh? The fault lies entirely with the woman. Since apparently you are female (and it shocks me that a woman with any life experience would make a statement like the above), I'm guessing you must be a conservative, likely a conservative christian.
After this are you going over to the rape threads to tell the women that being raped is all their fault too?
I think we should go back to soup lines. I'm serious. If someone needs food, let them go get in line and get food. That way there is no fraud or abuse and people who are truly hungry are getting food. Stop wasting taxpayer money on EBT cards that are sold for 50 cents on the dollar so people can buy alcohol and drugs.
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.
Although there are no shortage of socialists at the federal and state level who would like the uninformed to THINK that they are, so that seniors' pockets can continue to be picked to accommodate the welfare bloat.
