|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 31, 2013 17:57:19 GMT
The newly named food program....S.N.A.P.....changed its name to take away the stigma. And they even went so far as to start pushing the use of them in our colleges. Now, we have 45 MILLION people on food stamps. No way do we have 45 Million people who are so poor they are going hungry. In fact, jus the opposite. It's yet another federal program that is being abused in so many ways. It's needs to be cut even more....and qualifications need to be stricter and enforced better. Some much-needed FACTS from universities regarding the abuses follow and how they push it and make it so easy:
"Portland State University devotes a page on its Web site to explaining the ease with which students can receive benefits, along with instructions on how to apply. The school says food stamps are not charity but rather a benefit all honest taxpaying citizens can afford. The U.S. Department of Agriculture renamed food stamps the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008, instituted electronic debit cards instead of coupons, and began an aggressive push to expand eligibility. Hey....they can even get on it for nothing else but because being on it qualified them to defer their student loan! How great is that, students? This is from the school’s site:
Here are some additional SNAP facts:
• Over half of all U.S. citizens will use SNAP at least once during their lifetime.
• SNAP is not a charity. As a taxpayer, you are paying into this program and, when needed, you can reap the benefits.
• There are enough SNAP dollars for everyone that needs them. As a matter of fact, about 20 percent of Oregonians who are eligible for SNAP do not apply.
• Students receiving SNAP can defer their student loans while they are receiving benefits.
• Applying for SNAP is easy. In most cases, you will not have to apply more than once a year.
Traditionally food stamps are for the working poor and single parents, but colleges are trying to make it as easy as possible for students to obtain federal assistance, no matter their socio-economic background.
Read more: dailycaller.com/2010/03/27/universities-encourage-students-to-enroll-in-food-stamp-program/#ixzz2jK5sL5HQ
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 31, 2013 17:59:17 GMT
I think one of the reasons this was done....pushing it in colleges.....was for Obama to "buy" votes from the young college students. It was like all those who got "Obama phones." It was attempt to get in good with those who already treated him like a rock star.....and would make them a little more eager to get out and vote for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 1, 2013 3:29:58 GMT
Just read today where the Food Stamp program has increased some 358% over the past 10 years. A big part of that came when Obama increased the program with Stimulus money....and that is why the recent automatic cut of the program is going in to effect. But even still, it means about $36/mo less to a family of four. They are still getting a lot of money for food.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 2, 2013 15:14:43 GMT
SNAP provides assistance for part of the purchase of food based upon a progressive scale (i.e. the lower the income the greater percentage of the person's food budget is supplemented) for individuals and/or families based upon a financial analysis of the ability of the person/family to provide food based upon income.
Questioning the financial analysis that establishes the qualification criteria and the supplement percentage is valid in reviewing the SNAP program. To question the financial analysis requires a separate analysis that establishes a different eligibility level and progressive benefit level.
Political opinion based upon how many qualify, who qualifies, how much their benefits should be, or how much funding the program requires that is not based upon a financial analysis has no validity.
I'll wait for the financial analysis to be posted because that was not included in the OP and the OP is nothing but political opinion unsupported by any documentation that really addresses the issue of qualification criteria for SNAP or the benefits provided that can only be obtained through financial analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 2, 2013 19:19:06 GMT
First.......the OP is about colleges and how they are pushing food stamp usage among students. There was a link provided.
Secondly, there is no requirement of attaching an "analysis" of any program we discuss in the OP. But since you seem to want one.....here is a very good recent one: object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa738_web.pdf
It describes the explosion of the program....and you'll be happy to hear this: it started under George W. Bush!! However, when one looks at the diagrams included it just barely began in 2008 to increase; Obama took it to another level altogether. But that doesn't even matter. Point is.....under Obama the requirements to get in the program have been loosened and they are actually pushing people into the program. But of course, that's to be expected for we all know that true to his Socialist ideas......getting more and more people in the middle class dependent on the federal government is the goal.
I was wrong about something though. There is not currently 45 million in the program; there is now 48 million in the program. And it's costing us $78 Billion/year. Yes, Mr. President.....that's Billion with a B.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 2, 2013 19:21:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 15:16:00 GMT
It addresses six different eligibility requirements.
So exactly what is being objected to? Why is there an objection? What is recommended to resolve the objection?
The eligibility related to resources, income and maximum benefits are based upon a financial analysis and are not arbitrary per se. If there are objections to those then a financial analysis would logically be required to provide grounds for revision. Opinion can be expressed related to them but without a financial analysis it has to be understood that it's just an opinion.
What cannot be logically argued is that if a person meets the criteria they should be denied the benefits nor can we logically argue that the cost of the benefits is "too much" for those that qualify. In short simply saying 45 million people meeting the criteria or $80 billion in expenditures is an invalid argument if that many people qualify and that is what it costs to provide the benefit to them.
Of interest is the fact that it's estimated that well over 10 million Americans actually meet the SNAP criteria but don't collect the benefits they're entitled to. Probably 60 million Americans actually meet the criteria established for SNAP assistance so the 45 million is really quite low in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 15:38:59 GMT
It addresses six different eligibility requirements.
So exactly what is being objected to? Why is there an objection? What is recommended to resolve the objection?
The eligibility related to resources, income and maximum benefits are based upon a financial analysis and are not arbitrary per se. If there are objections to those then a financial analysis would logically be required to provide grounds for revision. Opinion can be expressed related to them but without a financial analysis it has to be understood that it's just an opinion.
What cannot be logically argued is that if a person meets the criteria they should be denied the benefits nor can we logically argue that the cost of the benefits is "too much" for those that qualify. In short simply saying 45 million people meeting the criteria or $80 billion in expenditures is an invalid argument if that many people qualify and that is what it costs to provide the benefit to them.
Of interest is the fact that it's estimated that well over 10 million Americans actually meet the SNAP criteria but don't collect the benefits they're entitled to. Probably 60 million Americans actually meet the criteria established for SNAP assistance so the 45 million is really quite low in reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 16:49:17 GMT
What's my objection? Already told you........the program has grown astronomically and they are giving them out too easily. The program is no longer about "hunger." It's about making things "easier" for people. These young, healthy people have it much easier than we did and they will not have the benefit of learning how to plan and live within their means. Of course, that's what the Socialist wants: more and more citizens being dependent. And when they can succeed in getting the Middle Class hooked on being dependent, they are making great strides into Socialism.
What part of that do "Tea Party" conservatives fail to understand. They continually state that more families aren't dropping below the poverty level when every economic analysis states otherwise.
Look at this chart!
No net income growth since the start of the Recession for the bottom 99% in America. While there has been growth the only place it's grown is with the top 1%. For low and middle income earners they're real incomes are negative. Check out this next chart on Median Income Growth.
 Median Income Families have been below the line related to real income since 2008 and this is far worse for families that have below median income. What part of this does the Tea Party Movement not understand. They keep saying, "no one is slipping into poverty where they need assistance" when every single statistic says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
More People are collecting SNAP benefits because More People need that assistance due to declining real income. The problem isn't how much the government is spending on SNAP benefit or how many qualify for the benefits the problem is that due to declining income and wages more people are falling into poverty in the United States while the super-wealthy continue to reap virtually all of the financial benefits of the recovery since 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 17:06:54 GMT
What's my objection? Already told you........the program has grown astronomically and they are giving them out too easily. The program is no longer about "hunger." It's about making things "easier" for people. These young, healthy people have it much easier than we did and they will not have the benefit of learning how to plan and live within their means. Of course, that's what the Socialist wants: more and more citizens being dependent. And when they can succeed in getting the Middle Class hooked on being dependent, they are making great strides into Socialism.
What part of that do "Tea Party" conservatives fail to understand. They continually state that more families aren't dropping below the poverty level when every economic analysis states otherwise.
Look at this chart!
Surely you realize your chart is NOT about 99% of the population falling below the poverty level....as you stated above, don't you??? You must realize that this 99% also includes an awful lot of "rich" people, right? So, are you saying no that this 99% should ALL be receiving food stamps??? Really?
No net income growth since the start of the Recession for the bottom 99% in America. While there has been growth the only place it's grown is with the top 1%. For low and middle income earners they're real incomes are negative. Check out this next chart on Median Income Growth.
Again....that does NOT equate to starving or having a need to be on food stamps!!
Median Income Families have been below the line related to real income since 2008 and this is far worse for families that have below median income. What part of this does the Tea Party Movement not understand. They keep saying, "no one is slipping into poverty where they need assistance" when every single statistic says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE.
More People are collecting SNAP benefits because More People need that assistance due to declining real income. The problem isn't how much the government is spending on SNAP benefit or how many qualify for the benefits the problem is that due to declining income and wages more people are falling into poverty in the United States while the super-wealthy continue to reap virtually all of the financial benefits of the recovery since 2009.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 17:18:47 GMT
I am NOT against those truly in poverty and/or hungry being on Food Stamps. I am against the fraud and abuse of the system....and I would think every other taxpayers would agree on this point; that it IS being abused by many and the rules and follow-up should be better. Some are selling the on Craigslist:
“If you need food. This is not a gimmick or game,” read one posting from Philadelphia. “Please let me know, I have food stamps for sale..... Serious Replies only!!!”
“I have $500 worth and it costs $350 cash. No I will not do half!” read another posting from the Atlanta area. “I don't need to sell. If you would like to get an extra $150 to $175 in grocery and pay no taxes and can see the benefit that you will still be saving then email me or call me and we can arrange the whole deal as soon as you like.”
Those who are desperately hungry are also taking to the website, offering cash for the stamps.
“DO YOU NEED SOME QUICK CASH?? -- $100 (atlanta),” read the title of one such post, under which the buyer offered: "If you get Food Stamps and need some extra cash then hit me asap,” reads the post.
In another posting from the Trenton, N.J., area, the seller claims that he will have a $100 EBT card available on Nov. 1 for $60.
Contacted by FoxNews.com and asked about the legality of such a transaction, the seller cryptically responded: "Lol are u serious is the govt legal of course but I have a customer Good day [sic]."
www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/22/craigslist-makes-turning-food-stamps-into-cash-snap/
Okay....now I think this proves there are some getting the cards who don't need them.....and who are trying to profit from this program. THIS needs to be fixed! And the rules and regulations need to be strictly enforced......as the program has ballooned way out of sight.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 3, 2013 17:56:11 GMT
PROVE to me that ONLY those in the poverty level are on food stamps! Now one thing they keep doing is raising that cut-off for what is considered "poverty." The federal gov't comes up with a level they consider "poverty level" and then make it so that people who have 300% and even 400% over that....in some cases..... above that poverty level qualify for assistance. You keep claiming food stamps are all about POVERTY.
According to the qualification requirements for SNAP people with 300% or 400% above the poverty level cannot receive SNAP benefits. If my short term memory is accurate (I'm not going back to look) then only a person at the "Poverty Level or Below" based upon net income can collect SNAP benefits.
I believe the current criteria for SNAP was established in 2002 under the Bush Administration. I'm unaware of any changes to the criteria since 2002 where there was an increase in the criteria of income relative to the poverty level that would allow more people to obtain SNAP assistance.
The USDA that administers the SNAP program is responsible for ensuring that those receiving the assistance qualify based upon the criteria for SNAP. There will always be cases of fraud and last year is the recent statistics I could find.
We don't know exactly how much fraud actually occurred but any fraud is unacceptable and the USDA is actively engaged in identifying and addressing fraud related to the SNAP program.
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud.htm
What we don't do is cut off people that do qualify because of the small number that commit fraud. That is an absurd proposition. Fighting fraud is a legitimate issue and the USDA is actively involved in that. That has absolutely nothing to do with those that do qualify and are receiving benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Nov 3, 2013 20:22:32 GMT
PROVE to me that ONLY those in the poverty level are on food stamps! Now one thing they keep doing is raising that cut-off for what is considered "poverty." The federal gov't comes up with a level they consider "poverty level" and then make it so that people who have 300% and even 400% over that....in some cases..... above that poverty level qualify for assistance. You keep claiming food stamps are all about POVERTY.
According to the qualification requirements for SNAP people with 300% or 400% above the poverty level cannot receive SNAP benefits. If my short term memory is accurate (I'm not going back to look) then only a person at the "Poverty Level or Below" based upon net income can collect SNAP benefits.
I believe the current criteria for SNAP was established in 2002 under the Bush Administration. I'm unaware of any changes to the criteria since 2002 where there was an increase in the criteria of income relative to the poverty level that would allow more people to obtain SNAP assistance.
The USDA that administers the SNAP program is responsible for ensuring that those receiving the assistance qualify based upon the criteria for SNAP. There will always be cases of fraud and last year is the recent statistics I could find.
We don't know exactly how much fraud actually occurred but any fraud is unacceptable and the USDA is actively engaged in identifying and addressing fraud related to the SNAP program.
www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud.htm
What we don't do is cut off people that do qualify because of the small number that commit fraud. That is an absurd proposition. Fighting fraud is a legitimate issue and the USDA is actively involved in that. That has absolutely nothing to do with those that do qualify and are receiving benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 4, 2013 6:37:28 GMT
It addresses six different eligibility requirements.
So exactly what is being objected to? Why is there an objection? What is recommended to resolve the objection?
The eligibility related to resources, income and maximum benefits are based upon a financial analysis and are not arbitrary per se. If there are objections to those then a financial analysis would logically be required to provide grounds for revision. Opinion can be expressed related to them but without a financial analysis it has to be understood that it's just an opinion.
What cannot be logically argued is that if a person meets the criteria they should be denied the benefits nor can we logically argue that the cost of the benefits is "too much" for those that qualify. In short simply saying 45 million people meeting the criteria or $80 billion in expenditures is an invalid argument if that many people qualify and that is what it costs to provide the benefit to them.
Of interest is the fact that it's estimated that well over 10 million Americans actually meet the SNAP criteria but don't collect the benefits they're entitled to. Probably 60 million Americans actually meet the criteria established for SNAP assistance so the 45 million is really quite low in reality.
I am dismayed that so many of your countrymen live in mortal fear that someone, somewhere, is getting something to which he may not be entitled. This in the richest society on the planet!  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Nov 4, 2013 11:45:34 GMT
As noted the USDA estimates suggest as much as $753 million in federal food aid is spent fraudulently each year and that is something we should all be concerned with and it needs to be addressed. What we have to understand though is that there are diminishing returns financially in fighting fraud. Some is relatively easy to detect and stop and in industry is often referred to as "low hanging fruit" while other forms would be very costly to stop. Fighting fraud needs to be cost effective. The USDA might be able to end 99% of the fraud but it could cost $5 billion or more to accomplish that. At the other end they might be able to prevent $100 million in fraud by only spending $10 million because it's low hanging fruit.
There is a financial balance in addressing fraud. It might be argued, for example, worth it to spend $1 billion to fight existing fraud eliminating $400 million in current fraud if that effort results in lowering future fraud for years to come but some fraud will always exist with any system.
As for "making it easier" for those that qualify for SNAP benefits to receive benefits we really should make it as easy as possible. Simply creating red tape to make it harder for a qualified person to obtain the benefits actually goes against "conservative" political ideologies as typically "conservatives" condemn government red tape. If a person or family qualifies then we should cut out as much bureaucrat BS as possible from the system.
I don't know how any "conservative" could logically advocate for more bureaucracy in government.
What I believe we've established is that the reason behind the huge increase in SNAP expenditures and the number of those receiving the benefits is exclusively related to that many more people falling below the "qualification" criteria established in 2002. There have been no changes to that criteria but even before the 2008-2009 recession tens of millions of American were already very close to being eligible and those people have now fallen below the criteria. The criteria itself, based upon the official poverty level, is not being questioned nor should it be changed.
The problem really is that because SNAP has become more necessary that there is proportionately more fraud related to it. I don't know if the fraud to spending ratio has changed over the last ten years but because the spending to provide necessary benefits to qualified applicants has increased dramatically due to an increase in poverty the "dollars" related to fraud has also increased.
As a libertarian I'm a huge advocate of reducing government spending and we're spending about $80 billion a year to help put food on the tables of extremely poor people in America. I know the solution to reducing the spending it to reduce the necessity for it by reducing poverty and not by taking the food off the tables of poor individuals and their families.
We need to address the problem and the problem is increasing poverty in the United States. If we reduce poverty then fewer and fewer families will qualify for the SNAP program and spending will decline based upon that. That is the only pragmatic solution.
|
|
This is from the school’s site:
