The FACTS on Food Stamps

[boedicca]

I dont know for sure, but if caviar was sold at a local supermarket you could. However, again, buying caviar while be eligible for SNAP is not feasible. Therefore it is not even realistic to discuss it.

if it NOT forbidden they yes...it is very realistic to discuss....you did want to talk about the facts did you not?

no..... next

filet mignon..... yes or no.

Find me an anecdotal story where someone with SNAP bought caviar, then we'll talk.

IOW, you lose.

 

[jasonnfree]

Mentioning poor people getting food stamps is a sure way to get the haters crawling out from under their rocks. I can imagine dead repubs trying to scratch their way out of their coffins to weigh in on the subject.

 

[syrenn]

I dont know for sure, but if caviar was sold at a local supermarket you could. However, again, buying caviar while be eligible for SNAP is not feasible. Therefore it is not even realistic to discuss it.

if it NOT forbidden they yes...it is very realistic to discuss....you did want to talk about the facts did you not?

no..... next

filet mignon..... yes or no.

Find me an anecdotal story where someone with SNAP bought caviar, then we'll talk.

how about lobsters and high end steaks.... same idea.... luxury foods....

so lets talk shall we....

how about Chantalle mushrooms?


snopes.com: Food Stamps Steak Receipt

 

[Billy000]

Nobody asked if it is realistic...it's possible. There is nothing to prevent anyone who has SNAP benefits from buying caviar with them.

Are you really this stupid? Tell you what, find me a case where someone bought caviar with SNAP funding. Otherwise, shut up.

sucks to be you



snopes.com: Food Stamps Steak Receipt

This has nothing to do with caviar. Are you stupid or are you really that desperate to win the argument?

 

[idb]

When did the battle against poverty become the war on the poor?

 

[syrenn]

Are you really this stupid? Tell you what, find me a case where someone bought caviar with SNAP funding. Otherwise, shut up.

sucks to be you



snopes.com: Food Stamps Steak Receipt

This has nothing to do with caviar. Are you stupid or are you really that desperate to win the argument?

lets recap....

no it is NOT caviar... but yes you can buy caviar with snap if you want to....

just as my link showes lobster and high end steaks.....

you wanted to talk about facts.... its pretty simple

can you or cant you buy caviar with snap????

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

 

[R.C. Christian]

What we need around here is some soylentgreen.

 

[Billy000]

if it NOT forbidden they yes...it is very realistic to discuss....you did want to talk about the facts did you not?

no..... next

filet mignon..... yes or no.

Find me an anecdotal story where someone with SNAP bought caviar, then we'll talk.

how about lobsters and high end steaks.... same idea.... luxury foods....

so lets talk shall we....

how about Chantalle mushrooms?


snopes.com: Food Stamps Steak Receipt

Like i said, you can buy those items, but anyone that does is a moron. Therefore, when it happens, it rare.

Man you people are desperate to hold onto your hollow bigotry.

 

[boedicca]

Well, I'd hazard to guess that Billy can't buy caviar with his SNAP benefits merely because he has no idea what caviar is.

 

[Old Rocks]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Well, yes. After the Great Republican Recession, and the present GOP still trying to turn it into the Second Great Republican Depression by blocking anything that would aid the economic recovery, that is what you get.

And this most of all demonstrates just what is wrong;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[asterism]

Definitely not. You would starve to death before you could save up the money for it.

That's not what she asked bub. Are there are restrictions on eligible SNAP purchases which prevent one from buying caviar?

I dont know for sure, but if caviar was sold at a local supermarket you could. However, again, buying caviar while be eligible for SNAP is not feasible. Therefore it is not even realistic to discuss it.

It absolutely is feasible. If one gets the benefits without needing it, they are free to waste the money.

And many do:

FOX 12 investigators: Food stamps used for Frappuccinos - KPTV - FOX 12

Elitism On A Food Stamp Budget? | A Black Girl's Guide To Weight Loss

Soda companies rake in $4 billion a year of taxpayer money via the government food stamp program (SNAP)

Food Stamps: More Benefit to Big Food Than to the Poor? | TIME.com

 

[asterism]

Yes, but you would have to be a complete idiot. It's pretty hard to ignore a basic need like hunger. Recipients learn quickly to play it smart.

Or learn how to game the system.

KCTV5 food stamp fraud investigation leads to arrest - KCTV5

Dollar store owner charged with allowing more than $5M in fraudulent food stamp purchases | NJ.com

Farmington couple arrested on suspicion of food stamp fraud - Farmington Daily Times

Arrests made in EBT fraud scheme | HeraldTribune.com

Store owners arrested on food-stamp fraud charges | Volusia County News - WESH Home

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20130429/NEWS01/130429008/Update-Three-arrested-food-stamp-fraud

All of these stories are anecdotal. You are conveniently ignoring the stats in my thread. The stats on SNAP fraud are relatively low, especially since SNAP is not enough for many people.

I'm not ignoring the statistics you posted. I'm saying that the program is so large and mismanaged that fraud is rampant. Then I posted evidence that shows it's rampant.

$5 million in fraud from one person? That should be huge, but it's just a drop in the bucket.

 

[Billy000]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Well, yes. After the Great Republican Recession, and the present GOP still trying to turn it into the Second Great Republican Depression by blocking anything that would aid the economic recovery, that is what you get.

And this most of all demonstrates just what is wrong;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

That is downright shocking. You need to make a thread out of this.

 

[R.C. Christian]

What are we up to now 48% of Amerika is on food stamps now? Do you see something wrong here?

Well, yes. After the Great Republican Recession, and the present GOP still trying to turn it into the Second Great Republican Depression by blocking anything that would aid the economic recovery, that is what you get.

And this most of all demonstrates just what is wrong;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

I'm not very interested in partisan squabbles. If you go back far enough you can pin anything on anyone or any group.

 

[asterism]

I dont know for sure, but if caviar was sold at a local supermarket you could. However, again, buying caviar while be eligible for SNAP is not feasible. Therefore it is not even realistic to discuss it.

Nobody asked if it is realistic...it's possible. There is nothing to prevent anyone who has SNAP benefits from buying caviar with them.

Are you really this stupid? Tell you what, find me a case where someone bought caviar with SNAP funding. Otherwise, shut up.

Caviar & food stamps ? Brooklyn Daily

Steak and Lobster too:

snopes.com: Food Stamps Steak Receipt

 

[Darkwind]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.

SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]


SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]

Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2006 to 2008.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.

The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.

SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]

Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]



Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.

Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xiii]

While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xiv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xvii]

Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xviii]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xix]

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2-3 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits.[xx] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.

In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.


Program Growth

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.


The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxi]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxii]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

way to build up a false premise.

Tell Me then, oh purveyor of government propaganda, why is it that we face a hunger issue in this country but are the fattest fuckers on the planet?

Children in poverty and who have parents accepting food stamps seem to have the most fat kids.

Any clue as to why that is? Because I know why, but I doubt you'd believe it because you will only accept the progressive view point.

 

[Billy000]

Or learn how to game the system.

KCTV5 food stamp fraud investigation leads to arrest - KCTV5

Dollar store owner charged with allowing more than $5M in fraudulent food stamp purchases | NJ.com

Farmington couple arrested on suspicion of food stamp fraud - Farmington Daily Times

Arrests made in EBT fraud scheme | HeraldTribune.com

Store owners arrested on food-stamp fraud charges | Volusia County News - WESH Home

http://www.tallahassee.com/article/20130429/NEWS01/130429008/Update-Three-arrested-food-stamp-fraud

All of these stories are anecdotal. You are conveniently ignoring the stats in my thread. The stats on SNAP fraud are relatively low, especially since SNAP is not enough for many people.

I'm not ignoring the statistics you posted. I'm saying that the program is so large and mismanaged that fraud is rampant. Then I posted evidence that shows it's rampant.

$5 million in fraud from one person? That should be huge, but it's just a drop in the bucket.

Yeah, ONE person. One person is not evidence of "rampant". This is an extreme case, but it is not representive.

 

[007]

Let's put it another way. 1 out of 6 people face hunger. America is not as wealthy as people would like to believe.

can you buy lobster with snap?

You can, but when you have to provide food all Month most wouldn't buy it.
It's like you guys assume all these people with little income and families to feed are just saying fuck it lets starve the rest of the month so we can have lobster tonight.
While others live in the real world, and realize most are not eating like kings.

Well, they may or may not say "fuck it, let's starve the rest of the month so we can have lobster tonight," but they do say "fuck it, let's starve the rest of the month so we can go to the nudie bar and get liquored up"...

Welfare Recipients Spending Taxpayer Dollars at Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores | Blog | The Willis Report with Gerri Willis | Fox Business

 

[Luissa]

can you buy lobster with snap?

You can, but when you have to provide food all Month most wouldn't buy it.
It's like you guys assume all these people with little income and families to feed are just saying fuck it lets starve the rest of the month so we can have lobster tonight.
While others live in the real world, and realize most are not eating like kings.

Well, they may or may not say "fuck it, let's starve the rest of the month so we can have lobster tonight," but they do say "fuck it, let's starve the rest of the month so we can go to the nudie bar and get liquored up"...

Welfare Recipients Spending Taxpayer Dollars at Strip Clubs, Liquor Stores | Blog | The Willis Report with Gerri Willis | Fox Business

You can't use food stamps at a strip club. Next.

 

[Billy000]

Inspired by Pete's asinine rant on the poor, here is the no-spin facts on SNAP (food stamps). Maybe now you will stop listening to the bullshit propaganda that comes from the Republican party. I put what I consider to be the most important facts in bold, but I do encourage you to read all of it.

SNAP is targeted at the most vulnerable.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]


SNAP is responsive to changes in need, providing needed food assistance as families fall into economic hardship and then transitioning away as their financial situation stabilizes.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

SNAP has a strong record of program integrity.

SNAP error rates declined by 57% since FY2000, from 8.91% in FY2000 to a record low of 3.80% in FY2011.[vi] The accuracy rate of 96.2% (FY2011) is an all-time program high and is considerably higher than other major benefit programs, for example Medicare fee-for-service (91.5%) or Medicare Advantage Part C (88.6%). [vii]

Two-thirds of all SNAP payment errors are a result of caseworker error. Nearly one-fifth are underpayments, which occur when eligible participants receive less in benefits than they are eligible to receive.[viii]

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.0 cent per dollar during the years 2006 to 2008.[ix] As you may have read in local news, USDA is aggressively fighting trafficking, but while there are individual cases of program abuse, for every one instance of fraud, there are hundreds of stories of heartbreaking need.

The need for food assistance is already greater than SNAP can fill.

SNAP benefits don’t last most participants the whole month. 90% of SNAP benefits are redeemed by the third week of the month, and 58% of food bank clients currently receiving SNAP benefits turn to food banks for assistance at least 6 months out of the year.[x]

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal. [xi]

Only 55% of food insecure individuals are income-eligible for SNAP, and 29% are not income-eligible for any federal food assistance.[xii]



Categorical Eligibility

Categorical eligibility allows many people to automatically enroll in SNAP who wouldn’t otherwise qualify for the program.

Categorical eligibility does not allow households to enroll automatically; they must still apply through the regular SNAP application process, which has rigorous procedures for documenting applicants’ income, citizenship, work status, and other circumstances.

Categorical eligibility allows states the option of aligning SNAP eligibility rules for gross income and asset limits with TANF to reduce administrative costs and simplify the eligibility determination process. While three-fourths of SNAP households were categorically eligible, almost all would also have been eligible for SNAP under standard rules.[xiii]

While a small number of households would not have met gross income and asset eligibility rules without categorical eligibility, SNAP families are still among the poorest households:

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744 and net monthly income of $338.[xiv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with gross income under 130% of poverty and net income at or below 100% of poverty. While categorical eligibility allows states to set a higher gross income limit, only 1.5% of SNAP households in 2010 had monthly net income above 150% of the poverty line, so the policy has not made SNAP available to large numbers of households with incomes above the federal gross income limit of 130% of poverty.[xv]
SNAP rules limit eligibility to households with assets of no more than $2000 ($3250 for households with a senior or disabled member). The average SNAP household still has assets of only $331.[xvi] Additionally, the SNAP asset limit of $2,000 has not been adjusted for inflation in 25 years and has fallen by 48% in real terms since 1986.[xvii]

Categorical eligibility has dramatically increased program participation.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.
SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xviii]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xix]

Eliminating categorical eligibility would significantly reduce costs.

Eliminating categorical eligibility would achieve savings by causing about 2-3 million low-income people currently enrolled in SNAP to lose their benefits.[xx] Many more families newly applying for assistance would have their benefit issuance delayed because of the increased complexity of applying and additional processing time required. This human cost is too high a price to pay with so many families struggling to get by in this economy.

In addition to the loss of needed food assistance for struggling families, this savings would come at the expense of increased administrative costs. Eliminating the streamlined application process that categorical eligibility allows would require states to allocate staff time to duplicate enrollment procedures and incur the cost of modifying their computer systems, reprinting applications and manuals, and retraining staff.


Program Growth

Generous eligibility rules and program fraud and abuse have caused participation in SNAP to balloon, sharply driving up the cost of the program when the nation can least afford it.


The dramatic increase in SNAP participation and costs is a result of the recession, not categorical eligibility. Our nation has seen the highest unemployment rates in nearly 30 years.

SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [xxi]

As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[xxii]

SNAP (Food Stamps): Facts, Myths and Realities

(Their sources are straight from government data)

way to build up a false premise.

Tell Me then, oh purveyor of government propaganda, why is it that we face a hunger issue in this country but are the fattest fuckers on the planet?

Children in poverty and who have parents accepting food stamps seem to have the most fat kids.

Any clue as to why that is? Because I know why, but I doubt you'd believe it because you will only accept the progressive view point.

We are the fattest country because 15% of us eat fast food on a DAILY basis. Fast food is cheap. Healthy food is not.

Seem to have the fattest kids? You pulled that out of your ass.

This isn't a "progressive viewpoint". These are facts. Get used to it.