Trump administration proposal could kick 3 million off food stamps

[MTAtech]

Is this another GOP austerity for the poor, sick, aged, and homeless and handouts for billionaires idea?

When is the free market going to solve any problem, as conservatives claim? The free market only creates profit for a few. It doesn't help others.

The free market doesn't solve all problems. There are clear market failures every day. The free market in medicine yields drugs so expensive that most wouldn't be able to pay for them without insurance. The free market for food yields hunger and malnutrition because some can't afford basic food. That's where SNAP comes in and why it is immoral to cut the program. In a just world this should also be politically toxic. But if anyone needs a reminder, this exactly shows who the Republicans are: they cut taxes on billionaires and cut benefits to the poor.

 

[Lisa]

The free market doesn't solve all problems. There are clear market failures every day. The free market in medicine yields drugs so expensive that most wouldn't be able to pay for them without insurance. The free market for food yields hunger and malnutrition because some can't afford basic food. That's where SNAP comes in and why it is immoral to cut the program. In a just world, this should also be politically toxic. But if anyone needs a reminder, this exactly shows who the Republicans are: they cut taxes on billionaires and cut benefits to the poor.

I agree with you. The free market is not the solution and you cannot effectively run a government like a business. The job of the government is to support a society with necessary services It is not to turn a profit, unlike a corporation.
SNAP and other programs creates a wider economic benefit beyond the safety net and the amounts should be increased. They also save money because peoples health goes downhill when they eat low-quality food because that is all they can afford.
We as Americans have not discussed the idea of a guaranteed basic income because it seems to be working in other countries. The economy is driven by money changing hands so putting more money in the hands of people who are forced to spend in such as the poor and middle class is beneficial to the whole. Making a few people very rich is not a benefit to the larger society, as the last 40 years of failed supply-side economics has proven. The fact that wealth does not trickle down but instead trickles up is lost on conservatives. We need to do a better job of teaching macroeconomic concepts because as of now most people don't understand the idea. they see themselves but they do not understand how money works in an interdependent system like a society. People see the individual trees but they fail to see the interconnected forest ecology that the many trees create.

 

[Lisa]

I'd recommend one a week or when feeling off. Just a safety net for a few less common micros.

The vast majority of vitamins are just wasted and only contribute to increased pollution in the water system.

It took me almost a year to convince my Dr that a daily multivitamin was adding to my depression. An excess of vitamins, especially calcium, can exacerbate depression. Most women's vitamins have calcium because we are supposed to need it but they make me sick.

 

[ecofarm]

The vast majority of vitamins are just wasted and only contribute to increased pollution in the water system.

It took me almost a year to convince my Dr that a daily multivitamin was adding to my depression. An excess of vitamins, especially calcium, can exacerbate depression. Most women's vitamins have calcium because we are supposed to need it but they make me sick.

Citrus calcium might be better for you. It's more expensive but generally considered higher quality even for those without sensitivities (bioavailability).

Taking 3 vitamins per day seems kinda suicidal to me. Not that it can really hurt someone, your story aside, but it's of so little use and overloads the body. A vitamin once in a while or when one feels low or an illness coming on is enough to serve as a safety net for micro nutrition.

 

[Objective Voice]

The issue should be studied. You can't do that with the simple data SouthernDemocrat tried looking at.

Why do you think we need historic, recession-level food stamp participation in an era with a good economy and record employment?

View attachment 67260481

Probably because some of those jobs are part-time and don't pay a living wage rate suitable for the geographic area where the employee resides. OR maybe the food stamps recipient is still unemployed. Who knows for sure. To find out you'd have to ask the recipient.

 

[Objective Voice]

Wages are higher now in constant dollars than they were on any of the years for the chart I posted. By your logic, it's therefore easier to feed you family now than it was when participation rates were much lower.

There's more people working, and they're making more money.

iguanaman did mention inflation as a possible contributor as why these food stamp recipient's dollars aren't stretching far enough. But again, who knows precisely why they can't make ends meet. You're probably right that more studies would have to be conducted. Thus, you'd have to ask the recipient for their reasons why.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I spent 3 years of high school where I owned a single pair of pants. I put myself through college with zero help from my parents, worked a very low paying job for a few years and then put myself through five years of graduate school. Believe me, I am extremely well acquainted with what it's like to live with under 20k in income and under 15k in income.

As for your last paragraph, nobody -- NOBODY -- is talking about doing away with food assistance altogether.

No, just kicking another 3 million off. Do you honestly think that 3 million people are abusing SNAP, and if so would these cuts surgically remove those SNAP abusers from the program?

Honestly, what is the point here? SNAP is a whopping 2% of the federal budget. Again, what in the hell am I paying tens of thousands a year in taxes for if we can't even provide food assistance to 11% of the population?

Most wealth transfers in this country are not from rich to poor, they are from urban to rural areas and from young to old. Yet you guys on the right always want to kick the poor as if they are the problem when it comes to federal spending.

 

[Lisa]

Citrus calcium might be better for you. It's more expensive but generally considered higher quality even for those without sensitivities (bioavailability).

Taking 3 vitamins per day seems kinda suicidal to me. Not that it can really hurt someone, your story aside, but it's of so little use and overloads the body. A vitamin once in a while or when one feels low or an illness coming on is enough to serve as a safety net for micronutrition.

I was talking 1/2 tab. a day when I noticed the link between depression and calcium. I occasionally take a B complex vitamin and I don't have problems with that.

 

[NWRatCon]

One shouldn't eat dirt but a little clay never hurt anyone.

However, the decentralization of agriculture is a good plan.

I was a member of a local community supported agriculture (CSA) group for awhile. I fully support eat local.

 

[ecofarm]

I was a member of a local community supported agriculture (CSA) group for awhile. I fully support eat local.

Successful decentralization of agriculture was the difference between China, and Cuba, and the USSR. The Soviets had been drinking up big ole lakes for so long they just couldn't get it done.

 

[Taylor]

Probably because some of those jobs are part-time and don't pay a living wage rate suitable for the geographic area where the employee resides. OR maybe the food stamps recipient is still unemployed. Who knows for sure. To find out you'd have to ask the recipient.

That was certainly a trend after the recession, but we appear to have finally recovered to pre-recession levels of part tine employment, where food stamp participation has historically been much lower.


I certainly agree that the issue should be studied further to understand what's going on.

 

[Taylor]

No, just kicking another 3 million off. Do you honestly think that 3 million people are abusing SNAP, and if so would these cuts surgically remove those SNAP abusers from the program?

Honestly, what is the point here? SNAP is a whopping 2% of the federal budget. Again, what in the hell am I paying tens of thousands a year in taxes for if we can't even provide food assistance to 11% of the population?

Most wealth transfers in this country are not from rich to poor, they are from urban to rural areas and from young to old. Yet you guys on the right always want to kick the poor as if they are the problem when it comes to federal spending.

Even with "kicking another 3 million off" we'd have historically high participation, would we not? Why are you so opposed to studying the issue? No intellectual curiousity about it whatsoever?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Even with "kicking another 3 million off" we'd have historically high participation, would we not? Why are you so opposed to studying the issue? No intellectual curiousity about it whatsoever?

Every day our population increases combine that with near record levels of wealth and income inequality, and it's a given that you will have higher snap participation than we have had in the. It's simple math. You have about 11% of the population on SNAP. You have to be at or near poverty to qualify. Why do you think that we need to reduce the number of people on it?

This obtuse bull**** about "studying the issue", is extremely easy to see through.

 

[Taylor]

Every day our population increases combine that with near record levels of wealth and income inequality, and it's a given that you will have higher snap participation than we have had in the. It's simple math. You have about 11% of the population on SNAP. You have to be at or near poverty to qualify. Why do you think that we need to reduce the number of people on it?

This obtuse bull**** about "studying the issue", is extremely easy to see through.

No, actually you don't have to be "at or near poverty" to qualify, and this proposal would not take away benefits from families "at or near poverty". You don't seem to know even the basic facts of the issue. Currently, people who would not otherwise qualify for benefits and make up to twice that of a family at the poverty level can still collect benefits, at least for a short time.

 

[poweRob]

make them all eat soylent green?

wwjd?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

No, actually you don't have to be "at or near poverty" to qualify, and this proposal would not take away benefits from families "at or near poverty". You don't seem to know even the basic facts of the issue. Currently, people who would not otherwise qualify for benefits and make up to twice that of a family at the poverty level can still collect benefits, at least for a short time.

Taylor, this is not a debatable issue. There is literally an eligibility calculator on the federal snap site. Put numbers into it. Run that calculator anyway you want, and you find you can't make **** and still qualify for SNAP. FNS SNAP Program Eligibility Screening Tool

I just ran the calculator. Put in a household of 5 with 4 dependents. Thus a single parent household with 4 dependents. I put in 40k a year in gross income, a 1000 dollars a month in rent and 500 dollars a month in utilities, even included child care expenses and still did not qualify. Are you honestly telling me that a single parent home that earns just 40k year, and has 4 kids they are raising, can easily buy groceries on top of living expenses? Yet even then, they don't qualify. That household would have to earn at least 10k less a year with the same level of expenses and dependents to qualify.

 

[Taylor]

Taylor, this is not a debatable issue.

You're right. It's just me providing you a free education on an issue where your passion far outweighs your knowledge:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf

"Broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) is a policy that makes most households categorically eligible for SNAP because they qualify for a non-cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or State maintenance of effort (MOE) funded benefit."

To qualify in many states, you can have unlimited assets and an income 200% of the poverty level.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You're right. It's just me providing you a free education on an issue where your passion far outweighs your knowledge:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/snap/BBCE.pdf

"Broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE) is a policy that makes most households categorically eligible for SNAP because they qualify for a non-cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) or State maintenance of effort (MOE) funded benefit."

To qualify in many states, you can have unlimited assets and an income 200% of the poverty level.

Yes in some, primarily high cost of living states, you can make up to 200% of the poverty level. For example, lets say you live in Denver. A family of 5 with a total gross income of 55k a year could qualify for some SNAP benefits. See how far 55k a year gets you as a family of 5 in Denver.

Let's do the math:

At that income level, at best they are taking home 3800 a month.

Rent for a 3 bedroom apartment in Denver - minimum: 2500 dollars a month.
Car Payment for a modest vehicle: 250 dollars a month.
Minimum gas and maint for that vehicle: 150 dollars a month.
Utilities minimum: 400 dollars a month.

So at this point, before they buy a stitch of clothing than have a little over a 100 dollars a week left. That is before clothing, incidentals, healthcare, much less food. So you are telling me that family will be just fine without any sort of SNAP benefits?

Don't think they are getting any housing assistance, that is typically a 7 year or more wait.

 

[Taylor]

Yes in some, primarily high cost of living states, you can make up to 200% of the poverty level. For example, lets say you live in Denver. A family of 5 with a total gross income of 55k a year could qualify for some SNAP benefits. See how far 55k a year gets you as a family of 5 in Denver.

Let's do the math:

At that income level, at best they are taking home 3800 a month.

Rent for a 3 bedroom apartment in Denver - minimum: 2500 dollars a month.
Car Payment for a modest vehicle: 250 dollars a month.
Minimum gas and maint for that vehicle: 150 dollars a month.
Utilities minimum: 400 dollars a month.

So at this point, before they buy a stitch of clothing than have a little over a 100 dollars a week left. That is before clothing, incidentals, healthcare, much less food. So you are telling me that family will be just fine without any sort of SNAP benefits?

Don't think they are getting any housing assistance, that is typically a 7 year or more wait.

You can rent in the suburbs for around $1500 a month, and utilities on an apartment are probably less than half of what you estimated. So, living expenses are closer to $1700, leaving $2100 a month to spend on food, transportation, etc.

But back to the point, which I guess you've conceded - not everyone on SNAP is living at or near the poverty level.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

You can rent in the suburbs for around $1500 a month, and utilities on an apartment are probably less than half of what you estimated. So, living expenses are closer to $1700, leaving $2100 a month to spend on food, transportation, etc.

But back to the point, which I guess you've conceded - not everyone on SNAP is living at or near the poverty level.

You are crazy if you think you can rent anything more than a 1 bedroom right now in the Denver suburbs for 1500 a month. We have an office in Denver on Larimer Square, the cost of living out there has skyrocketed. You would be lucky to find a 2 bedroom out there for 2500 a month and you better jump on that as soon as it came on the market. A three bedroom is far more. And 200 dollars a month for utilities in a place with Denver's climate and water prices, you are out of your mind. Hell mobile phone service and internet alone is a hundred minimum these days.

Some other cities where you can go up to 200% of poverty line to get some benefits, not full mind you, are even more expensive than Denver is. So why on earth would we cut SNAP when its only 2% of federal outlays? I don't understand it. Surely we can find someone other than poor people to save a dime on. Seriously, what the **** is wrong with you?

 

[bongsaway]

I'm trying to understand how some folks on the right consider things like food, a phone, cable tv and a roof over your head to be excessive basics in 2019?

Corporate welfare costs america much more than food stamps yet it's always food stamps the government goes after. Weird.

 

[Taylor]

You are crazy if you think you can rent anything more than a 1 bedroom right now in the Denver suburbs for 1500 a month. We have an office in Denver on Larimer Square, the cost of living out there has skyrocketed. You would be lucky to find a 2 bedroom out there for 2500 a month and you better jump on that as soon as it came on the market. A three bedroom is far more. And 200 dollars a month for utilities in a place with Denver's climate and water prices, you are out of your mind. Hell mobile phone service and internet alone is a hundred minimum these days.

The northern suburbs tend to be less expensive... Thornton, Westminster, parts of Aurora as well as the area around Commerce City.

Denver has a great climate. Many, many people get by just fine without air conditioning. There's no humidity and the temperature drops considerably in the evenings. People use less electricity and it costs less than the national average. Winters are not nearly as cold as many think. There are cold stretches, but it's not persistent cold like up north. Average utility cost in Denver is much less than the national average.

 

[TheParser]

1. If the proposal does actually cut off 3,000,000 families from food stamps, then I hope that both Democrats and Republicans ask the administration to reconsider its decision.


2. Responsible Democrats should concentrate their energies on constructive efforts, instead of wasting time on nonsense such as impeachment hearings.


3. I have been reading that many serious people feel that the idea of a guaranteed annual income for every adult is gaining traction. Maybe giving every adult (including the homeless) a guaranteed annual income (the wealthy would be excluded) could start by giving every adult food stamps. Then they could use their money for rent, etc.


a. I think that one Democratic candidate, Mr. Yang, has suggested giving some money each month to every adult.

 

[Middle_Ground]

There are a variety of reasons why able bodied people might not be working. Many have disabilities but do not qualify for federal disability benefits. Many have unstable living conditions, such as living in shelters or with family or friends. Some are care givers for parents or other relatives, some lack the education to qualify for many jobs, others have language barriers to jobs, many other lack the transportation to get the jobs, others have felony convicts that prevent them from getting jobs.

Judge them all you want, but clearly, they are not gaming the system.

Or they are working poor?
Many adults without disabilities or kids are working poor.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I can relate to that. When my youngest daughter was born, my wife and I started her on WIC; lasted 2 months. We stopped because we felt we could afford to do without it and not jeopardize our daughter's nutritional needs. She's 18 yo now and doing fine. Of course, if we couldn't have afforded to take her off the program, we would have used it to the fullest. We made the decision to terminate the program's use simply because we could afford to take care of her on our own and figured let the next family in line use the benefit.

We received Wic for both our daughters could be the particular formula they needed at the time was just under $200 per week. It was physician ordered. Wic covered it and when they were okayed to come off that formula they got goats milk and we were off wic, soy was very hard to get back then.
My poor kids first time they had cows milk was at someone's home and they both got so sick.
I really don't totally understand what's going on with this new Trump plan. I don't get it.
If a person qualifies for other assistance sounds like they would automatically qualify for food stamps. It sounds like what's about to happen is 10's of thousands of food stamp workers will be needed all over the country to determine if 38 million people qualify for something they already know they qualify for. Just sounds like more paper work to me.