Politics House Republicans Cut SNAP

What is your "better way" or more importantly, what is the House Republican "better way"?

 

The mistake is conflating welfare with the SNAP program.

 

Or, how about not having hard cut-offs for benefits. If $1 means you do not qualify, honest people will be forced to hide the $1. It puts them in a situation of being exploited. If a person needs a phone to get a job (to get off of aid) but they do not have cash but they do have a debit card only good for food - what do they do - they transact an exchange - an exchange that may cause them to be exploited! The system is screwed up. The system assumes recipients lack judgement and can not determine what their needs are - you can spend the aid on X not Y and we see more and more of this. The food police will determine what you should eat. The drug police will make you pee in a cup every week in front of your children if need be! In the US the system is broken and is being made worse.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:11 PM ---

Let's ignore the big picture, how is that for a mistake. I think that if a person needs help, give them cash and let them spend it the way they choose. welfare, snap, whatever. What if a person needs to focus on transportation rather than food this month? what if next month the need is warm clothing? what if the next month there is a death in the family and a need to travel?

If taking a broader view is a problem for some, then it will be a problem for them = doesn't mean I am wrong!

 

Fantasy. Give me a study, poll, survey anything based on the opinions of SNAP recipients that states that they are unhappy with the way they are given money for food. Food is an everyday need. Cutting benefits so that we can 'come up with a better way' is total bullshit.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:14 PM ---

I can't imagine, can't fathom what you are thinking. People don't have a problem with SNAP assistance.

 

Right, they don't poll people in the "hood"! those that have phones typically have caller ID, unknown number may be a bill collector (yes, bill collectors will lie and pretend to do polls to get some info) they won't answer. Like I said I have been on both sides!
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM ---

Did you read what I wrote? There are people who will trade available aid for food for cigarets, of course they don't have a "problem". How do you define "problem"? And to DC, yes the money was eventually spent on food!

 

Farce.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM ---
Were you buying cigarettes with your food stamp money?

 

To a guy who counted the paragraphs, you ask if I knew there was more? I can see why you might like Krugman.

 

The poor are criminals who use their food stamps to buy cigarettes therefore we should just give them cash so that they can buy cigarettes outright.

 

My mother did.

She is no longer alive, so if the FBI is monitoring this, move on.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:23 PM ---

If that is what you get from my comments, time to move on. I guess to you all is good. Oh, and Republicans are bad.

 

And naturally that makes you an authority. I was bit by a dog when I was a child. Maybe I should assume that all dogs are dangerous.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM ---
How are you going to make up for the food being taken off of the table of good people right now?

 

In April, nearly three quarters (73%) of American voters indicated that the food stamp program was either very (41%) or fairly (32%) important for the country (FRAC/Hart Research, 2013). This sentiment is extremely durable, as the proportion has remained between 72% and 74% in four polls taken since 2010. ​

​

African Americans (86%), low income respondents (83%), and Democrats (85%) are particularly supportive of the program however even Republicans (60%) particularly Republican women (70%) rural voters (71%), and non college educated whites (73%) say the food stamp program is important for the country. ​

​

http://frac.org/pdf/snap_poll_august2013_hart_memo.pdf​

​

The "trafficking" to which you refer is a myth, given that the rate of such "fraud" is about one penny on the dollar.

 

I am unwatching this thread and moving on. I'll just finish my participation by re-stating that this move is stupid and will come back to haunt the morons who enacted it. People need to eat. If a person doesn't have cash or an EBT card in their pocket to get something to eat then they will go hungry. This is no magic 'pick up a shovel and start digging real hard and food will appear on your table' fairy tale we're living in. The population living under the poverty level is growing in this country and the middle class continues to struggle to maintain the level of subsistence that they had even a decade ago. And the best these people can come up with is to cut food stamp benefits. FOOD stamps. Unbelievable. If you want to talk about things we can cut and make more efficient in the long run, give me a fucking red marker. Because the people enjoying the majority of the freebies offered up by this crazy house of a system that we have here are not the poor. Open your fucking eyes.

 

I think that the first statement is correct but you are being overly optimistic about the second part.

 

I simply have an opinion. I share the basis of my opinion, to those who care. I have never claimed to be an expert. I take TFP as a place where people give their views. So what is your point?

Dogs are dangerous. Even weak and sick dogs have biting force that can do damage to people. All dogs being dangerous does not mean all will do harm, that all dogs are mean, etc.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 6:27 PM ---

I would give people in need, cash. I would let them use it as they choose. I wrote that already. My system would be a system where every household would have a minimum threshold of income. Simple as that. The debate can be on the amount. After that each additional dollar would be taxed on a flat rate. So, for example, everyone gets $20,000 if that is the amount. If you earn $10,000 on your own pay a percentage on what is spent perhaps 10%. If you earn $1 million and spend it, pay 10% on that. Effectively no one pays taxes if they consume less than $200,000. The trade-off would be an end to tax gimmicks, and all the programs that assumes people can not manage their lives.

Whatever the system, I think dramatic change is needed. My thoughts are focused on where the incentives are. I do not think we should have disincentives to work, savings and accumulating wealth.
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 7:50 PM ---

Out of all this. I gave my view on what I read. I explained why I hold the view. I gave context as it related to his commentary on class warfare in the article you cited. What have you done? So, you think I am wrong, you don;t think I read the article, you think I avoided an entire article to pick out a single sentence in the 7th paragraph....Ok I got it you think it is my problem!
--- merged: Sep 23, 2013 at 7:59 PM ---

​

I agree to, it is important. I also believe it can be improved. I also believe...and... I can tell you I have never been polled...and I can create a poll by asking questions in a certain way to give results to support an opposing political agenda. Most don't think it is worth it. Let's just do the food stamp thing, feel good about ourselves and focus on other things. Well perhaps it is time to actually focus on the actual needs of the poor.​

http://frac.org/pdf/snap_poll_august2013_hart_memo.pdf​

Right, there are controls in place. And of course if there was a problem a poll or survey would show it. Is sarcasm allowed here?

Seriously, I am not saying it is a "big" problem, but I do know that penny's make up dollars. So I ask you how many penny's on a dollar constitutes a problem?

 

Do you really think a payment of $133/month or $4.33/day (the national average SNAP benefits per person) is a disincentive to work? Seriously, Ace?

However small it is, it does make a difference in the food budget for a working family on the margin but I hardly think family members willing and able to work would pass up a decent paying job for $4.33/day( or even four times that for a family of four) in SNAP benefits.

 

My family was on SNAP for a while after our first was born. I was in school, the lady took a break from school to stay at home with the baby. We were on it as long as we needed to be. We were on it because we needed to be. After we no longer needed to be, we we stopped being on it. Because we were on SNAP, I was able to continue my schooling without interruption and have since gotten three degrees and make a nice amount of money doing what I went to school for. This job allows me to put so much more money into the economy via my spending and my tax dollars than would have been possible had I quit school to help pay for formula. Win fucking win all around.

These programs make so much sense, that they almost have to be opposed by the current flock of assholes in charge of the Republican Party.