One thing that should not be cut from the Stimulus Plan: Food Stamps Increase

[toomuchtime_]

Food stamps offer best stimulus - study - Jan. 29, 2008


http://www.moodys.com/cust/default.asp

Moodys is the top of the heap when it comes to economic analysis.

Really? Even after Moody's gave AAA ratings to the mortgage backed derivatives that caused this financial crisis and led to this recession?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27Credit-t.html?pagewanted=print

 

[Annie]

I just have to comment in a separate post.

I never thought I would see the day where I'd be arguing with my fellow human beings about the poorest people in the country or ones who meet the very strict guidelines for food stamps about whether they should receive a mere 13% increase to help the burden of the raising cost of living while their wages stay the same.

But then again, I suppose you see everything at least once.

Again I'll remind you that at least one point, I qualified. Shouldn't have happened, but my ex was very good at the legal system, it took it 3 years to catch up with him. So yes, my kids and I fell within qualifications-the school told me so. I didn't have to go that route, I was lucky. I feel for those that do, but I would if as at that time, I had kids aged 8-12. They would eat and be housed, come hell or high water.

As I said, I was lucky, my parents could at that time, easily pick us up. I had friends that made it possible not to be 'draining' my parents resources. Years later my ex-father in law, was very upset to learn what had transpired, (He was a retired officer at Sargent & Lundy, needless to say, multi-millionaire.) He did help my youngest child enter college, with a loan of $2000. My son has already paid him back, though not yet graduated. My ex was furious at his father and my son for the loan. My ex has not paid anything towards any of the kids college costs. They would have had to have sued him, by the divorce agreement. His income is in high 6 figures. Instead the took out loans.They are building their own futures.

Was any of this of their making or mine? No. But what was reality given the laws in force at the time. With the laws came the nets, but since we didn't have to, we didn't. I think we're better off.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Okay ... the Cell Phone thing ... though the cable part is certainly bad the phone is a need for some now, thanks to society becoming so "connected" almost all pay phones in some areas are completely gone. In Seattle we have one pay phone every ten blocks, and those rarely work thanks to thieves breaking them to get the change (what, a whole 50 cents ... stupid). So it depends on where you live as to if the phones become needed or not. When I was in the shelter some of them had those prepaid phones with free nighttime calls, during the day it was just for housing or job calls and at night it was to chat with others. They are cheap to, I can find phones (decent ones) for like $5 in my area if you don't mind a slightly used one and prepaid is about $20 a month for most plans.

Carrying on a conversation on the cell phone while paying for groceries is just bad manners imo. However, cell phones are a must today and you can get prepaid phones with limited minutes for very little money these days. It's actually cheaper than having a land line.

Actually it is cheaper, cell phones cost the same for long distance as they do local, while landlines with just local will cost about the same as a low cost prepaid phone. I have a landline, I hate being reachable all the time. When I am out with a friend I an not available. They can email me if it's important enough. But I am just lucky, most people can't live like that, it's almost impossible. My best friend who hates cells had to get one for work, they actually told her to get the job she had to be reachable 24/7, and I know a lot of jobs do that. But yeah, being on the phone when paying for anything is rude, when I worked in food service I would skip them if they were on the phone and move to the next customer, it's rude to the other customers and the employee to talk on the phone at times.

If you qualify for food stamps, you would qualify for special rates from your phone company which would provide unlimited local calling for about $12.00 a month. Some careful shopping will allow you to get very low cost pre paid phone cards or a call around service for out of area calls. Cell phones are very convenient but they are not nearly as cheap as a landline if you are on food stamps.

 

[KittenKoder]

Carrying on a conversation on the cell phone while paying for groceries is just bad manners imo. However, cell phones are a must today and you can get prepaid phones with limited minutes for very little money these days. It's actually cheaper than having a land line.

Actually it is cheaper, cell phones cost the same for long distance as they do local, while landlines with just local will cost about the same as a low cost prepaid phone. I have a landline, I hate being reachable all the time. When I am out with a friend I an not available. They can email me if it's important enough. But I am just lucky, most people can't live like that, it's almost impossible. My best friend who hates cells had to get one for work, they actually told her to get the job she had to be reachable 24/7, and I know a lot of jobs do that. But yeah, being on the phone when paying for anything is rude, when I worked in food service I would skip them if they were on the phone and move to the next customer, it's rude to the other customers and the employee to talk on the phone at times.

If you qualify for food stamps, you would qualify for special rates from your phone company which would provide unlimited local calling for about $12.00 a month. Some careful shopping will allow you to get very low cost pre paid phone cards or a call around service for out of area calls. Cell phones are very convenient but they are not nearly as cheap as a landline if you are on food stamps.

Actually, it's $5 to $8 in Seattle. I pay $13 for normal unlimited local calling without using them. Again though, cell phones are cheap in this area, about the same cost only here we get free long distance (meaning it costs the same for local) on cell plans. It all depends on what is available in your area. Though because of cell phones being primary by most people, most of our pay phones are gone, making cell phones almost a requirement. I say almost because somehow I have survived without one, but I know very few who have managed like I have. But then I rely on email much more than phones, I prefer email.

 

[Shadow]

Last time I'll try to get you to understand. Both Dis and I showed multiple examples of how families could get the biggest bang for their grocery dollars, food stamps or not. You throw in some bromide that many poor only get a few hours sleep before their next shift. They need processed foods, which are expensive and nutritionally weak. Especially for blacks, with a predisposition to high blood pressure.

Even without the sleep problem, you seem to think they are incapable of making good decisions. I would characterize that as noblesse oblige.

They can do so, but you can't have a make all solution like yours and apply it to everyone where all the situations are different and not 100% sure it will work for everyone.

They are quite capable of making good situations. I commented on the fact the Cost of Living is growing higher and higher, while wages aren't at the same level. So what's going to happen? People are going to be at a disadvantage already.

That's why this 13% increase in food stamps for everyone is better. Everybody can afford not only better food but buy more food for their families. And the businesses make more money from the people buying the food which translates into both small and large businesses growing and perhaps even more jobs.

Honey,If Annie,Dis and I can all raise a family,work more then one job and keep a home running on a budget...so can everyone else. The poor you keep whining about already have extra help with food stamps and daycare. God you dems are greedy and whiny....

 

[Dis]

Last time I'll try to get you to understand. Both Dis and I showed multiple examples of how families could get the biggest bang for their grocery dollars, food stamps or not. You throw in some bromide that many poor only get a few hours sleep before their next shift. They need processed foods, which are expensive and nutritionally weak. Especially for blacks, with a predisposition to high blood pressure.

Even without the sleep problem, you seem to think they are incapable of making good decisions. I would characterize that as noblesse oblige.

They can do so, but you can't have a make all solution like yours and apply it to everyone where all the situations are different and not 100% sure it will work for everyone.

They are quite capable of making good situations. I commented on the fact the Cost of Living is growing higher and higher, while wages aren't at the same level. So what's going to happen? People are going to be at a disadvantage already.

That's why this 13% increase in food stamps for everyone is better. Everybody can afford not only better food but buy more food for their families. And the businesses make more money from the people buying the food which translates into both small and large businesses growing and perhaps even more jobs.

Food, in the last year, has gone up approx. 5% or so, from what I can tell (with a few items being a little higher).. If we're going to more than double that percentage in what we're just giving away for free, stipulations NEED to be put in place. We can't just keep handing, handing, and handing more out - there's no freakin incentive to get off your ass and do better.

You, however, seem to want to lump everyone into the same pity party, and just give a giant royal handout.. That's bullshit. We need to maike it so people want to get OFF welfare, and foodstamps; not make it too easy to stay on.

 

[Luissa]

Last time I'll try to get you to understand. Both Dis and I showed multiple examples of how families could get the biggest bang for their grocery dollars, food stamps or not. You throw in some bromide that many poor only get a few hours sleep before their next shift. They need processed foods, which are expensive and nutritionally weak. Especially for blacks, with a predisposition to high blood pressure.

Even without the sleep problem, you seem to think they are incapable of making good decisions. I would characterize that as noblesse oblige.

They can do so, but you can't have a make all solution like yours and apply it to everyone where all the situations are different and not 100% sure it will work for everyone.

They are quite capable of making good situations. I commented on the fact the Cost of Living is growing higher and higher, while wages aren't at the same level. So what's going to happen? People are going to be at a disadvantage already.

That's why this 13% increase in food stamps for everyone is better. Everybody can afford not only better food but buy more food for their families. And the businesses make more money from the people buying the food which translates into both small and large businesses growing and perhaps even more jobs.

Honey,If Annie,Dis and I can all raise a family,work more then one job and keep a home running on a budget...so can everyone else. The poor you keep whining about already have extra help with food stamps and daycare. God you dems are greedy and whiny....

What if you go to school full time and are not in an approved program so they don't provide help for daycare? I guess it might be hard to budget then!

 

[RodISHI]

I suppose if you have all had a good set of circumstance you may simply think that people who need that help are just simply lazy, etc..

I know a little gal with four children. She had a bad marraige. Now she may not be the brightest light bulb but then again I am not sure everyone has their shit all together once they get into certain position.

She attempted to get her nurses aid certification. Her ex did not pay his support. Heck the guy can't even support himself. The state put fairly strict limitations on how much one can make, how much assistence a sitter will be paid for watching children of parents who need help, etc... So she has to make up for that difference when she works or goes to school.

Her last resort was to be a stripper or stay in utter poverty. She finally got through the schooling for her nurses aid certificate to make a whole eight dollars an hour. A house that will accomadate five cost at least $800.00 a month where she lives. Daycare runs her about $150.00 a week min.

The question comes down to should we make sure the children are able to eat or not?

My vote is make sure there is at least food available for them. Supported more Republican since I started voting than any other party.

I must be one of those whiners. Could be called lazy too even though we did stay on call 24/7 for over ten years running a business that supported or assisted in the support of forty more people.

Funny thing is I bid on my first state contract back when I was twenty-five a single mother of two trying to survive drawing welfare and getting food stamps. Amazingly I ended up with that contract. Went straight off of welfare into a contract for the state. I worked 395 days straight without one single day off. I must be lazy.

 

[Dis]

They can do so, but you can't have a make all solution like yours and apply it to everyone where all the situations are different and not 100% sure it will work for everyone.

They are quite capable of making good situations. I commented on the fact the Cost of Living is growing higher and higher, while wages aren't at the same level. So what's going to happen? People are going to be at a disadvantage already.

That's why this 13% increase in food stamps for everyone is better. Everybody can afford not only better food but buy more food for their families. And the businesses make more money from the people buying the food which translates into both small and large businesses growing and perhaps even more jobs.

Honey,If Annie,Dis and I can all raise a family,work more then one job and keep a home running on a budget...so can everyone else. The poor you keep whining about already have extra help with food stamps and daycare. God you dems are greedy and whiny....

What if you go to school full time and are not in an approved program so they don't provide help for daycare? I guess it might be hard to budget then!

It's always hard to budget. That's no excuse for not doing it, tho. Everyone has this, or that for a reason. Fact is, it was done 50 years ago and people survived just fine, and there really wasn't much of the "gimmie!" mentality there is today. Just because someone happens to be a single mother with no job skills, that doesn't mean somebody owes them anything.

Funnier thing yet, is a lot of them KEEP having babies, and the ones footing the bill don't get to say "Hey, knock it off!".

 

[KittenKoder]

Wanna know a slightly related topic:

In our state the Republicans are trying to get rid of GAU (for those who don't know, it's biggest benefit is the medical coverage) but are pushing to increase spending in keeping junkies out of jail ... by giving them drugs legally and money, free housing, and free medical. GAU can't be collected by those with convictions unless they prove they are clean and sober as well as working to stay that way. That's just wrong, catering to the junkies and drunks instead of the workers who just need a little more.

 

[editec]

Tough choices for America's hungry - CNN.com

With the national economy in meltdown, more Americans than ever are relying on the federal aid program to keep from going hungry. In October, more than one in 10 people -- about 31 million -- were using the food stamp program to get by, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

More recent numbers are not available, but advocates for the poor say the number of those in need of aid probably has increased since then.

Advocates for the poor, as well as those on federal assistance, hope President Obama's economic stimulus plan will increase food stamp payments. The average family on food stamps would receive $79 more per month if the stimulus bill passes in the U.S. Senate this week, according to The New York Times.

I hope we can all agree on that.

It's a disgrace we call ourselves the "richest nation on earth" while 31 million of our citizens or every 1/10 cannot even afford to feed their family or themselves anymore.

Overall I agree with this. However, it still bothers me when I see someone using food stamps who is driving a brand new Cadillac. We all know what I'm talking about. No, not everyone on food stamps drives a nice brand new car, but you know what I'm talking about.

I live in one of the poorer places in America.

Something like half the kids in our schools are eligble for lunch, meaning that something like half their families are eligble for food stamps.

They're all White people.

Is that who you mean? Poor White People?

Cause if that's who you mean, you are wrong, at least as it relates to Maine.

They don't drive new Caddies...the men mostly drive newer gas-guzzling trucks and their wives and children mostly drive gas-guzzling old junkers.

 

[editec]

And if its a republican area they will starve.

You won't find many republicans on foodstamps. Wonder why that is...

You do here in Maine.

 

[RodISHI]

And if its a republican area they will starve.

You won't find many republicans on foodstamps. Wonder why that is...

You do here in Maine.

You will all over the country to editec. It is not just Maine. Many republicans still are not understanding why they lost that last election or why they have been losing so many congressional seats.

I am wondering how many with white collar jobs think the country can remain solvent while keeping clerical work, insurance, cable and banking services going on a path where by they can keep paying their bills but the rest of the society cannot. It is obviously not working.


People cannot eat insurance policies, newspapers, legal documents, tech services or even the teachers good words.

 

[Care4all]

Tough choices for America's hungry - CNN.com





I hope we can all agree on that.

It's a disgrace we call ourselves the "richest nation on earth" while 31 million of our citizens or every 1/10 cannot even afford to feed their family or themselves anymore.

Overall I agree with this. However, it still bothers me when I see someone using food stamps who is driving a brand new Cadillac. We all know what I'm talking about. No, not everyone on food stamps drives a nice brand new car, but you know what I'm talking about.

I live in one of the poorer places in America.

Something like half the kids in our schools are eligble for lunch, meaning that something like half their families are eligble for food stamps.

They're all White people.

Is that who you mean? Poor White People?

Cause if that's who you mean, you are wrong, at least as it relates to Maine.

They don't drive new Caddies...the men mostly drive newer gas-guzzling trucks and their wives and children mostly drive gas-guzzling old junkers.

No kidding!

But how do you know if they are on food stamps? If I am at the grocery store, in line at the cashier, is there a way for me to note the person in front of me is on food assistance? I don't believe they are actually food STAMPS anymore and they are using something like an atm card????

For all i know, everyone at the grocer is on food stamps?

So how does one know a person is on food stamps and driving a brand new cadilac with a ton on gold jewelry on them as others have stated?

HOW DOES ONE KNOW now a days?

care

 

[Care4all]

CONTRARY to the belief of many....including myself, until i just looked it up....

Rural America has a higher poverty rate than metro America....about 30% higher than urban poverty rates.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/soc/ruralpoverty.pdf

 

[Ravi]

So how does one know a person is on food stamps and driving a brand new cadilac with a ton on gold jewelry on them as others have stated?



care

That's always been a myth Care, there's never been any truth to it. Something Ronnie made up to bash poor people with.

Pretty sad that so many still believe it.

The way you tell about the food stamps is to closely watch what card the person is paying for their groceries with. It would take some incredible nerve to do it, but I think a few people on this thread would actually have no problem sticking their big fat noses into someone else's business.

 

[Care4all]

You know, there is a federal cap on welfare assistance of 5 years, and you can only collect for 2 years max without working, otherwise the 5 years if you are working.... since the gingrich welfare reform passed in 1998, also you can not receive food stamps for longer than a few months UNLESS you are WORKING....is my understanding of it as well....?

I don't think people even think about the fact that welfare was MAJORLY REFORMED in the late 90's to eliminate the abuse, otherwise you would NOT hear the same ole same ole stories about people sitting on their butts being lazy bums collecting my money on welfare, kind of crap...

you have to work now to collect it, for the most part.

 

[RodISHI]

The same goes for unemployment insurance Care. People can't just collect without actively seeking work even if there is none available.

 

[xsited1]

I just have to comment in a separate post.

I never thought I would see the day where I'd be arguing with my fellow human beings about the poorest people in the country or ones who meet the very strict guidelines for food stamps about whether they should receive a mere 13% increase to help the burden of the raising cost of living while their wages stay the same.

But then again, I suppose you see everything at least once.

You'll change your mind when you get a job and start working for a living. Right now you're still in the idealistic stage. The idea of Robin Hood sounds like a great idea when you're young, but that soon changes when you discover how the the real world works.

 

[Dis]

The same goes for unemployment insurance Care. People can't just collect without actively seeking work even if there is none available.

Know how many of those people go looking for work they *know* isn't available to them because they decided they make more sitting on their ass collecting unemployment?

I actually get applications that flat out state "I am applying for this job as part of an unemployment claim, and asking for wages of $18.00 to $25.00 per hour minimum during the hours of 8-4, Monday through Friday." knowing full well the job they're applying for pays $8 an hour, and that nights and weekends are required.