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.
Why not make them wear big red Ws on their coats/sweaters/shirts so that the entire world would know of their terrible sin of being poor? Shame seldom works to make someone "improve". Mostly it makes them hateful.
It is NOT a sin to be poor. As most people know, I think, there weren't many people poorer than Jesus of Nazareth when he was an adult -- and, personally, I think that the percentage of the EXTREMELY wealthy who should feel ashamed is probably about equal to the percentage of poor people who should be ashamed, because many in both groups seem to feel that they are entitled to live off the hard work of others.
Whenever I speak disrespectfully of "people on welfare", I am NOT (in my mind, at least) including those who are on food stamps or whatever because of circumstances over which they had (or have) no control, and who are doing whatever they are able to do to not be "beholden" to anyone any more than is absolutely necessary for them to survive. For those people, I have the highest respect.
It is NOT a sin to be poor. As most people know, I think, there weren't many people poorer than Jesus of Nazareth when he was an adult -- and, personally, I think that the percentage of the EXTREMELY wealthy who should feel ashamed is probably about equal to the percentage of poor people who should be ashamed, because many in both groups seem to feel that they are entitled to live off the hard work of others.
Whenever I speak disrespectfully of "people on welfare", I am NOT (in my mind, at least) including those who are on food stamps or whatever because of circumstances over which they had (or have) no control, and who are doing whatever they are able to do to not be "beholden" to anyone any more than is absolutely necessary for them to survive. For those people, I have the highest respect.
Exactly right. Many have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They need help. Americans are the most generous people on Earth.
But we aren't chumps. We know there's a difference between someone down on their luck and someone who's content to milk the System their entire life. In turn, they teach that "milking system" to their children. I'm not advocating cutting the bums off, but we do need to break the cycle somehow. Tackle and end the fraud. That's not too much to ask.
Why not make them wear big red Ws on their coats/sweaters/shirts so that the entire world would know of their terrible sin of being poor? Shame seldom works to make someone "improve". Mostly it makes them hateful.
This is a complete non sequitur. I didn't once mention shaming anyone. All I said is that benefits should only cover basics so that there is always an incentive to get off of benefits in order to have nicer things. If that is considered punishing the poor, then this country is well and truly screwed.
Proving that a shop owner is involved in welfare fraud requires investigation followed by a huge bill for the taxpayer to cover. Why is it that nobody gives the taxpayer any mercy when it comes to welfare?
I'm not anti-welfare. Never have been. But the system is grossly flawed and never addressed. I won't slap taxpaying Americans for being pissed about that.
I didn't mean to suggest you're anti-welfare. I didn't get that impression at all.
I was simply answering your call for opinions on your proposal with an option that would actually be cheaper to the taxpayer than the one you suggested, with cost being a factor you quite rightly expressed as a concern.
By Federal reporting, SNAP fraud and payment error rates have actually declined considerably since the transition was made to the card system. Fraud rates are currently at just over 1%, and payment accuracy is at an all-time high of close to 97% (USDA). No large-scale program is tamper-proof, but the evidence points to continual improvements in security. More of your tax dollars are wasted on other discretionary spending that doesn't benefit the American people at all than it is on the purest (most direct and purpose-limited) social welfare programs like SNAP that get so many people in a lather.
Now look into the relative rates of fraud and error at your local bank, where you entrust your net income. The average bank makes SNAP look like the best-run system on the planet.
In other words, despite the odd incident you read about, SNAP is by no means a broken program and its delivery system is remarkably effective for a country the size of the U.S., with individual states as massive and population-dense as many European countries. Fraud is part of the cost of doing business in almost any arena. We shouldn't just accept it when nothing is done to improve on problems, but we also need to recognise when changes are made (such as transition to the card system) that demonstrate an effort to reduce taxpayer costs. Despite what you may hear, it's not as though your government isn't continually working on improving its programs. The biggest obstacle to doing this is actually sensitivity about tax spending within the electorate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
If they can get to a fricken store, they can get to a Welfare Store. OH WELL if it takes them time on the bus. Even as a college student, veteran, and working for a living, I had to spend a lot of time on the bus when I was younger to get anything done. Oh. Well! I do not feel any sympathy for them.
On your first statement: Sure, if you want to invest many, many millions more tax dollars in the creation of a sufficient number of welfare stores to cover the entire and vastly changeable population of SNAP recipients than in the current prosecution of fraud. I believe Javacoffee is trying to save money.
According to the USDA, the average length of time a person or household is on SNAP benefits is only 8-10 months. Most able-bodied adults end up on SNAP through a limited period of financial crisis, when finding gas money or bus fare can be extremely difficult. Not to mention that even many major cities in the U.S. have cut back bus routes to the bare bones, because the infamous American taxpayer doesn't like supporting mass transit if they don't personally use it.
It's also worth noting that more than 3/4 of SNAP clients who receive benefits for longer than the average duration are disabled, elderly, or under the age of 17 (USDA). While it is genuinely commendable that you have been able to navigate periods of very low income without needing help, comparing yourself to these vulnerable groups seems a bit inappropriate.
I don't mean to play the know-it-all, but I'm distressed by arguments about social welfare programs and recipients that don't come from an informed perspective. If an issue is worth having feelings about, it's logically worth understanding well.
This pretty much sums it up. No matter how many facts are provided about low fraud rates, recipients working jobs, the economy or whatever, many people are obsessed with punishing poor people for the crime of being poor. All these poor people struggling to get by, and it turns out all they needed was someone to tell them to stop being poor.
Oh spare me. I was a college student, had a roommate leave me with 2 days notice and none of her half of the bills paid. I ended up homeless because of it. I still went to school, I ate Top Ramen for a damn year. I have NO sympathy for those who will not do for themselves. Yes there are people who legitimately need help, but there are a LOT more who do NOT legitimately need help, they are scamming the system and pulling on your hear strings.
I've already shared on this forum some time ago how after finding myself fricken homeless, I took on a job, as an undercover store security - nabbing those who were shop lifting. Part of that was to stand in line behind the person who I suspected. I had plenty of time to sit there and examine EXACTLY what people were loading up on the belt to be scanned for purchase. All of those people saying they don't pay attention, making accusations about being nosy, etc, THAT WAS MY DAMN JOB to be nosy. You have no idea how many people I saw with food stamps that bought Cap'n Crunch cereal, pop, steaks, Doritos....meanwhile, there I was, a veteran, a college student, poor as hell, working, and I didn't eat that well. Do you have any idea what it's like to work in a grocery store, surrounded by food that you can't even afford to eat, working to catch shoplifters while being surrounded by people who fill their grocery carts to the brim with expensive food, food that was not necessary, all on the tax payers' dime?
The people who really need it, I've noticed manage to make that money stretch. They are buying the beans and the rice and the 10 pound bags of potatoes, anything to make that money last the whole month. The leeches are the ones who overflow their carts with junk, with expensive food (steak? Really? STEAK?), while wearing nicer clothes than I had, and then loading up their cars outside that were not beat up, paint stripping, clear coat coming off, rust anywhere, etc. I didn't even have a fricken car. And you tell me I'm supposed to feel sorry for those types of people? Get the hell out of here.
I care about those who are actually down and out. I do not give one whip for those who live high on the hog for 2 weeks and then have nothing left over because they can't even budget their couple hundred or whatever amount that they get each month.
If you can do it with WIC, you can do it with the rest of welfare, including food stamps. If people can't resist the urge to pick up a large bag of fricken Doritos and a couple of 2 liters of pop, then give them a store where they spend their funds. That store will have only what they need, not what they want.
As someone who did not get handouts, was starving, homeless, hungry and sick to death of Top Ramen, I assure you, having to work your own way out of that is definitely a motivation. Look at all of our entitled youth these days. They want everything for free. Nothing should be worked for, all the "rich people" should pay for it. No one wants to earn anything, they want to sit home and watch tv, eat what they want, go out and party, live a comfy little life...acting like the tax payers are their parents paying their way.
No. I did not get hand outs, I was able bodied, I was educated, I served my country, and I got MYSELF out of that mess in very short order. It did not take me 3 years, 5 years, not even 2 years. Do you know how long it took me to get my life back in order? It was the absolute worst three weeks of my life, the WORST, because I still went to school, I knocked on every single business out there for work, I didn't care if they were hiring or not, I still went in there and filled out an application anyway, I was willing to take jobs that would have royally sucked...so spare me the, 'you hate the poor' horse crap. I've BEEN the poor. I do not hate the poor. I totally understand that things happen. I totally understand that when you are poor that there's no room for error, and yes, life is absolutely harder than it needs to be. I totally get that because I've lived it. Every fricken thing that goes wrong in life is ten times harder to overcome when you're poor, I GET THAT.
What I have no respect for, no sympathy for, are those who refuse to do a thing about it. No, I do not want to support those people because they take away from others who actually need it. Why anyone would support leeches is something that I will never understand. If you really gave a damn about the poor, you would also want to stop the leeches, but the fact is, most people don't care. They are either hard hearted and think that everyone's circumstances are the same, or they want those people on government care in order to garner more votes for their political party. That's it. Don't even preach to me about being poor, what it's like, who I should and should not care for. I've actually been there. Spare me the excuses.
The food deserts exist because its not profitable to operate in the area. Mostly because they are constantly stolen from.
The problem relevant to this discussion and to my comment is that they exist at all. No matter why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle
The point of limiting certain foods is a simple one: it shouldn't be pleasant to be on benefits. People should get enough to keep them alive and healthy, but not enough to enjoy what they receive. That will help motivate them to improve so that they can buy the luxury foods for themselves.
Given the demographics of most SNAP recipients (quoted from the USDA in my post just above), what exactly do you want them to improve on? The vast majority of able-bodied adults on SNAP do indeed "improve", as evidenced by the fact that their average time on SNAP is less than a year.
If you're a kid, elderly, disabled, or in acute temporary crisis, as the overwhelming percentage of SNAP recipients are, I'd say it's okay or even psychologically essential to be able to enjoy a little comfort food if you want to. Your life is relatively miserable without the additional limitation.
I see so many punitive arguments, but none of them seem to consider the statistical reality of the population in question.
I mentioned in my first post on this thread that I became aware and interested in this issue while working on a dedicated documentary. I read reams of reports from agencies involved with the SNAP program and visited a great many communities and households. It's fair to say the experience changed my personal views considerably. It's very difficult to be judgmental when you have a grasp of the true situation. It's simply not something you can paint fairly with a broad brush.
Given the demographics of most SNAP recipients (quoted from the USDA in my post just above), what exactly do you want them to improve on? The vast majority of able-bodied adults on SNAP do indeed "improve", as evidenced by the fact that their average time on SNAP is less than a year.
If you're a kid, elderly, disabled, or in acute temporary crisis, as the overwhelming percentage of SNAP recipients are, I'd say it's okay or even psychologically essential to be able to enjoy a little comfort food if you want to. Your life is relatively miserable without the additional limitation.
I see so many punitive arguments, but none of them seem to consider the statistical reality of the population in question.
I mentioned in my first post on this thread that I became aware and interested in this issue while working on a dedicated documentary. I read reams of reports from agencies involved with the SNAP program and visited a great many communities and households. It's fair to say the experience changed my personal views considerably. It's very difficult to be judgmental when you have a grasp of the true situation. It's simply not something you can paint fairly with a broad brush.
I think the above is an excellent post and makes some good points, although I would disagree that it is "essential" (psychologically or otherwise) "to be able to enjoy a little comfort food." People in many other countries do not, I think, even know what comfort food is, and yet they manage to get by without it. I think that to encourage the consumption of food for "comfort" is to encourage poor nutrition, bad health and/or obesity.
If people need "comfort" to deal with misfortune, I would suggest such things as a walk or a good book from the public library or conversation with friends -- and none of these cost even a single penny.
Note that 18.4 million means households, not people. They divide them in to groups of those with children, those who are over 60, those who are under 60 and are disabled, and then they put the single no children in to another group with the remaining group, and to explain the "discrepancy" it is:
Quote:
Sum of household types does not match the total because a household can appear in more than one category. For example, a household could include both a child and a person age 60 or older.
So a good chunk of those receiving assistance are absolutely capable of providing for themselves.
Out of those, 49%, almost half, are households with children. Out of those households, a whopping 70% have NO earned income. None. Zero. Nothing coming in. Back to the top of the study, over half of those have kids, and have no disability, and there is a good portion who are single with no children, all being perfectly capable of providing for themselves.
Quote:
Between 2007 and 2011, the number of people receiving SNAP benefits and federal spending on the program increased significantly (see Figures1 and 2). On average, 45 million people (or about one in seven residents in the United States) received SNAP benefits each month in fiscal year 2011.
I wonder what else happened then. Hmmm.
Quote:
That number represents a dramatic increase over the roughly 26 million people (or 1 of every 11) who received benefits in 2007.
They blame it on the recession. Yes, we got raked over the coals then, didn't we? Our tax dollars went to give more food stamps, in addition, 99 weeks of unemployment paychecks. What a fine time that was. And if you think that people out there didn't like where they found themselves, receiving all of these hand outs, and that they would take whatever job that they could get, I invite you to the Work and Employment forum right here on City Data. Please, do take the time to review what people were saying about work back in 2010, 2011, 2012, and even 2013. There was no motivation to get off of the 99 week free ride, there was no motivation to get off of food stamps, why? Because the government stole from hard working tax payers and handed it over to those who lost their jobs. You see, you made MORE by sitting on 99 weeks of unemployment and food stamps than you did working a job.
Some will try to argue that it means employers should raise their wages. Many of those jobs were unskilled, so no, there should be no increase in wages. People shouldn't have gone to college and received a Liberal Arts degree, or they got comfy the way things were, never saving for a rainy day. Some people did indeed suffer, and some people were indeed skilled and educated with a degree that meant something, but then when you tax the snot out of the rich, it's a wonder anyone acts surprised that the jobs are outsourced. Add in that the government was very liberal with other peoples money - they should never have stolen that much money to give to others.
Quote:
The federal government
(ie: the taxpayers)
Quote:
pays the full cost of SNAP benefits and splits the costs of administering the program
about equally with the states. At the federal level, SNAP is managed by the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), an arm of the Department of Agriculture. In fiscal year 2010, total administrative expenses (state and federal) were about $7 billion, just over half of which was used to assess eligibility and recertify people.
Additionally:
Quote:
For budgetary purposes, SNAP is designated in law as a “mandatory” or “direct spending” program—a category that generally consists of programs that do not receive annual appropriations—even though funds for SNAP are appropriated annually. The amount of money appropriated for the program each year is intended to cover the cost of providing benefits to all people who apply and are eligible. If the appropriated amount does not cover those costs, either lawmakers would need to appropriate additional funds or USDA would have to cut benefits. Although supplemental appropriations were provided about 20 years ago, there has not been any need to use supplemental appropriations or to implement any reduction in benefits in recent years.
Well of course not. Nothing has changed. Which is a clear illustration that throwing money at the "poor" does not help people become "no longer poor".
To the poster above, who failed to define "many communities and households", the reason people were on food stamps less than a year is because:
Quote:
For most households, there is no limit on how long they may participate in SNAP and effectively no work requirement.14 Households are typically certified as eligible for the program for periods of 6 to 12 months, depending on their state of residence, sources of income, and other circumstances; the recertification process is roughly the same as the initial application process.
That is changing, and what you may have run in to are those who were ineligible to receive food stamps longer as something in their household income level changed. However, that does not negate the fact that people will do all kinds of things to skirt the rules in order to show that they have no income.
Further, while some states have come out and said that you have to do X amount of hours of work every week to continue to receive food stamps, some of what they consider "work" is not actually work. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not there completely.
I would like to know the definition of "many communities and households". Is it even half of the 18 million reported in 2010? A quarter? Ten percent? Even 1%?
Last edited by Three Wolves In Snow; 01-21-2016 at 11:46 PM..
We already have a system in place that works better - it's called WIC. It's for pregnant and nursing women, and children under 5 yrs old. It provides only certain nourishing foods (formula, milk, eggs, fruits, vegetables, peanut butter, bread, etc.) in specified amounts. It cannot be used to buy sub sandwiches, soda, chips, etc. It's much more difficult to convert into cash by selling at a discount, since what you can "buy" with it is limited and specific.
Moving SNAP to a system like WIC will help cut down on fraud, waste, and diversion. It will also improve nutrition for the poor.
It doesn't work for consumers who have to waste time stuck in checkout lines behind someone paying with WIC vouchers.
Note that 18.4 million means households, not people. They divide them in to groups of those with children, those who are over 60, those who are under 60 and are disabled, and then they put the single no children in to another group with the remaining group, and to explain the "discrepancy" it is:
So a good chunk of those receiving assistance are absolutely capable of providing for themselves.
Out of those, 49%, almost half, are households with children. Out of those households, a whopping 70% have NO earned income. None. Zero. Nothing coming in. Back to the top of the study, over half of those have kids, and have no disability, and there is a good portion who are single with no children, all being perfectly capable of providing for themselves.
I wonder what else happened then. Hmmm.
They blame it on the recession. Yes, we got raked over the coals then, didn't we? Our tax dollars went to give more food stamps, in addition, 99 weeks of unemployment paychecks. What a fine time that was. And if you think that people out there didn't like where they found themselves, receiving all of these hand outs, and that they would take whatever job that they could get, I invite you to the Work and Employment forum right here on City Data. Please, do take the time to review what people were saying about work back in 2010, 2011, 2012, and even 2013. There was no motivation to get off of the 99 week free ride, there was no motivation to get off of food stamps, why? Because the government stole from hard working tax payers and handed it over to those who lost their jobs. You see, you made MORE by sitting on 99 weeks of unemployment and food stamps than you did working a job.
Some will try to argue that it means employers should raise their wages. Many of those jobs were unskilled, so no, there should be no increase in wages. People shouldn't have gone to college and received a Liberal Arts degree, or they got comfy the way things were, never saving for a rainy day. Some people did indeed suffer, and some people were indeed skilled and educated with a degree that meant something, but then when you tax the snot out of the rich, it's a wonder anyone acts surprised that the jobs are outsourced. Add in that the government was very liberal with other peoples money - they should never have stolen that much money to give to others.
To the poster above, who failed to define "many communities and households", the reason people were on food stamps less than a year is because:
That is changing, and what you may have run in to are those who were ineligible to receive food stamps longer as something in their household income level changed. However, that does not negate the fact that people will do all kinds of things to skirt the rules in order to show that they have no income.
Further, while some states have come out and said that you have to do X amount of hours of work every week to continue to receive food stamps, some of what they consider "work" is not actually work. It's a step in the right direction, but it's not there completely.
I would like to know the definition of "many communities and households". Is it even half of the 18 million reported in 2010? A quarter? Ten percent? Even 1%?
Do you really expect people with a liberal arts degree, minimum wage jobs, and student loan debt to save for a rainy day? Let us know how that works.
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.
