Win lottery...stay on the dole

ajh5408 said:   BilldaCat said:   FW10001 said:   Social Security is earned by people who have paid into it, right. Why compare SS with Food Stamps?That's not strictly on a 1:1 basis. My grandmother collects SS, has never worked a single day in her life, and is well off.Is she a widow?

No. Grandfather is still alive and kicking.

funkxl said:   "If your gross monthly income (based on your household size) is less than or equal to the amount in the table below, you might qualify for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program(SNAP). Because of changes to SNAP, most Pennsylvania households are not subject to a net income limit, nor are they subject to any resource or asset limits. This means that your household's assets (savings, retirement accounts, vehicles, etc.) are not considered in determining your eligibility for benefits. The best way to determine if your household will qualify for SNAP is to apply.""You might qualify", "most PA households". This paragraph states nothing definite (As opposed to the policy handbook, which actually details all the considerations used to determine eligibility). It also says the best way to determine eligibility is to apply - if you have significant assets, I'd encourage you to apply just to see why they bounce you...

brettdoyle said:   The genius politicians are going to pass more bloated legislation to make it illegal to break laws.Or they'll make something illegal with no enforcement mandate. Pander to both sides at the same time.

uutxs said:   Take a deep breath; tone down the hyperbole and your message has a better chance of getting across and taken seriously.

It isn't hyperbole when SNAP benefits are openly traded in urban open air drug markets or recipients frequently liquidate the card using the bottle deposit scam.


wordgirl said:   We understand that you're not a big fan of poor people having food. But you don't get to make stuff up.

This is hyperbole. When was the last time death by starvation was prevalent?

There are plenty of soup kitchens, food pantries, churches, and other nonprofits which provide decent and nourishing food to those in need. SNAP allows recipients to substitute soft drinks, potato chips, and microwave dinners for these programs. The alternative to SNAP is not starvation in the gutter.

wordgirl said:   funkxl said:   
Doesn't matter if work part time, full time, or not at all. If you have less then the income stated in that table you get food stamps aka snap,welfare,taxpayerstolen money to feed yourself. Doesn't matter if you have 30 houses, 30 cars, 30 planes, 100000oz's of gold, and 1 trillion in the bank. You make under the income guidelines in 'earned' income and you get the handout. Why do you think there is a record number of people on food stamps. Almost 50million people you are paying to feed. This doesn't even count the free lunch that their kids get in school twice a day.

This. Is. Not. True.

We understand that you're not a big fan of poor people having food. But you don't get to make stuff up.

Wrong again. Check any state SNAP site such as the one I already provided and you will see assets are not included. No one is starving in this country. If we were so concerned about the health of poor people why is there no drug screenings, or limits on the type of food that they should purchase, or limits on the amount of babys they can pump out etc

So go cry somewhere else.

The asset limit has been eliminated in almost every state that is an out of date website.

http://www.frac.org/pdf/map_eliminating_asset_test.pdf

funkxl said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:    The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.

The rest of your post has been debunked by others, so I'll just dust this last bit of Rush-ian nonsense off.

SNAP benefits cannot be redeemed for cash. Not in a car, not in a bar, not in a plane, not on a train. You cannot cash them, SamIAm - they can only be used for groceries - food groceries, to be specific. You can buy a birthday cake with SNAP benefits - I'll give you that much. If "let them eat cake" chaps your butt, rage on, dude.

A small subset of the SNAP-eligible population (certain elderly, homeless and disabled people) can use their benefits card at restaurants in some states (California, Arizona, Michigan, Rhode Island, one county in Florida).

The casino thing, you have probably gotten tangled up with TANF benefits which are cash assistance payments - what people think of as "traditional" welfare - that goes only to families with children. The people who are squawking about this are not thinking things through. Where are most of the casinos in this nation? On Native American reservations. Where do you find the deepest, most persistent poverty in the nation? On Native American reservations. Outside of casinos, how many ATM machines do you think there are on most Native American reservations?

Actually an misinformed poster 'tried' to debunk me but failed in an epic fashion. SNAP benefits are sold for cash every day. There is pervasive fraud associated with the food stamp welfare benefit program. You want to give you money away fine...go ahead...but stop stealing mine.

Old-school "food stamps" were pretty easy to commit fraud with - you'd just sell them. EBT cards are WAY harder to use for fraud, it's much easier to catch people who use them fraudulently, and states continue to seek innovative ways to combat fraud. Nationally, the fraud rate is less than 1 percent, which is pretty dang low. That doesn't mean the government should stop looking for ways to combat fraud, since 1 percent fraud in a program that size is still pretty huge - but it doesn't make a single thing that you said true ... or at least, more than 1 percent true.

jkimcpa said:   brettdoyle said:   The genius politicians are going to pass more bloated legislation to make it illegal to break laws.Or they'll make something illegal with no enforcement mandate. Pander to both sides at the same time.
Reminds me of NY, and their issue with charging tax on cigarette sales on Indian Reservations. I dont want to get off on that tangent, but it's almost hilarious how they use that "projected" tax revenue towards balancing the budget each year, yet at the same time do not make it mandatory to actually collect a penny (always backing off the idea after the budget has passed).

BilldaCat said:   uhhh..

The inability to afford steak and Doritos is not starvation.

wordgirl said:   funkxl said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:    The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.

The rest of your post has been debunked by others, so I'll just dust this last bit of Rush-ian nonsense off.

SNAP benefits cannot be redeemed for cash. Not in a car, not in a bar, not in a plane, not on a train. You cannot cash them, SamIAm - they can only be used for groceries - food groceries, to be specific. You can buy a birthday cake with SNAP benefits - I'll give you that much. If "let them eat cake" chaps your butt, rage on, dude.

A small subset of the SNAP-eligible population (certain elderly, homeless and disabled people) can use their benefits card at restaurants in some states (California, Arizona, Michigan, Rhode Island, one county in Florida).

The casino thing, you have probably gotten tangled up with TANF benefits which are cash assistance payments - what people think of as "traditional" welfare - that goes only to families with children. The people who are squawking about this are not thinking things through. Where are most of the casinos in this nation? On Native American reservations. Where do you find the deepest, most persistent poverty in the nation? On Native American reservations. Outside of casinos, how many ATM machines do you think there are on most Native American reservations?

Actually an misinformed poster 'tried' to debunk me but failed in an epic fashion. SNAP benefits are sold for cash every day. There is pervasive fraud associated with the food stamp welfare benefit program. You want to give you money away fine...go ahead...but stop stealing mine.

Old-school "food stamps" were pretty easy to commit fraud with - you'd just sell them. EBT cards are WAY harder to use for fraud, it's much easier to catch people who use them fraudulently, and states continue to seek innovative ways to combat fraud. Nationally, the fraud rate is less than 1 percent, which is pretty dang low. That doesn't mean the government should stop looking for ways to combat fraud, since 1 percent fraud in a program that size is still pretty huge - but it doesn't make a single thing that you said true ... or at least, more than 1 percent true.
And I reiterate - "using fraud to gain eligibility" is not "being eligible". All this ranting seems to be driven by fraudulant uses of the program creating a false perception of the programs in general.

svr411 said:   BilldaCat said:   uhhh..

The inability to afford steak and Doritos is not starvation.
I think it's more like they do "afford" the steak and Doritos, then starve the other 6 days of the week because they blew their budget on steak and Doritos. So alot of people are "starving", but alot of times they dont have to be.

Glitch99 said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:    The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.

The rest of your post has been debunked by others, so I'll just dust this last bit of Rush-ian nonsense off.

SNAP benefits cannot be redeemed for cash. Not in a car, not in a bar, not in a plane, not on a train. You cannot cash them, SamIAm - they can only be used for groceries - food groceries, to be specific. You can buy a birthday cake with SNAP benefits - I'll give you that much. If "let them eat cake" chaps your butt, rage on, dude.

A small subset of the SNAP-eligible population (certain elderly, homeless and disabled people) can use their benefits card at restaurants in some states (California, Arizona, Michigan, Rhode Island, one county in Florida).

The casino thing, you have probably gotten tangled up with TANF benefits which are cash assistance payments - what people think of as "traditional" welfare - that goes only to families with children. The people who are squawking about this are not thinking things through. Where are most of the casinos in this nation? On Native American reservations. Where do you find the deepest, most persistent poverty in the nation? On Native American reservations. Outside of casinos, how many ATM machines do you think there are on most Native American reservations?

Actually an misinformed poster 'tried' to debunk me but failed in an epic fashion. SNAP benefits are sold for cash every day. There is pervasive fraud associated with the food stamp welfare benefit program. You want to give you money away fine...go ahead...but stop stealing mine.

Old-school "food stamps" were pretty easy to commit fraud with - you'd just sell them. EBT cards are WAY harder to use for fraud, it's much easier to catch people who use them fraudulently, and states continue to seek innovative ways to combat fraud. Nationally, the fraud rate is less than 1 percent, which is pretty dang low. That doesn't mean the government should stop looking for ways to combat fraud, since 1 percent fraud in a program that size is still pretty huge - but it doesn't make a single thing that you said true ... or at least, more than 1 percent true.
And I reiterate - "using fraud to gain eligibility" is not "being eligible". All this ranting seems to be driven by fraudulant uses of the program creating a false perception of the programs in general.

There is NO FRAUD in this particular circumstance to gain eligibility. THERE IS NOT ASSET REQUIREMENT. Technically this poor excuse for a women can LEGALLY maintain SNAP BENEFITS. Thus the reason MI is circumventing the federal law by creating the so called lotto winnings law.

http://www.frac.org/pdf/map_eliminating_asset_test.pdf Check the link and cry GLITCH.

These people steal our money through the front door and the back, the front door they take handouts, the backdoor we have to pay for increased law enforcement and prison upkeep. It is also a kick back to the grocery stors, and the food manufacturers who pander shit food to the 'helpless' "poor people" who always find money for fashionable clothes, cars, and drugs. Yes there is a minority who uses the program as intended, but they are far a few between.

funkxl said:   There is NO FRAUD in this particular circumstance to gain eligibility. THERE IS NOT ASSET REQUIREMENT. Technically this poor excuse for a women can LEGALLY maintain SNAP BENEFITS. Thus the reason MI is circumventing the federal law by creating the so called lotto winnings law.

http://www.frac.org/pdf/map_eliminating_asset_test.pdf Check the link and cry GLITCH.

These people steal our money through the front door and the back, the front door they take handouts, the backdoor we have to pay for increased law enforcement and prison upkeep. It is also a kick back to the grocery stories, and the food manufacturers who pander shit food to the helpless "poor people" who always find money for fashionable clothes, cars, and drugs. Yes there is a minority who uses the program as intended, but they are far a few between.

This woman is an outlier.

What is more typical is fraud based on unreported income, hidden assets, or lies about household status. Do you have any idea how many unemployed single mothers are on food stamps because they don't report the presence of their well-employed live in boyfriend who has more than enough money to pay for food for his partner and children? Make these men take responsibility for their families instead of letting them loot the taxpayers by disappearing from a residence long enough for a food stamp application to go through.

svr411 said:   funkxl said:   There is NO FRAUD in this particular circumstance to gain eligibility. THERE IS NOT ASSET REQUIREMENT. Technically this poor excuse for a women can LEGALLY maintain SNAP BENEFITS. Thus the reason MI is circumventing the federal law by creating the so called lotto winnings law.

http://www.frac.org/pdf/map_eliminating_asset_test.pdf Check the link and cry GLITCH.

These people steal our money through the front door and the back, the front door they take handouts, the backdoor we have to pay for increased law enforcement and prison upkeep. It is also a kick back to the grocery stories, and the food manufacturers who pander shit food to the helpless "poor people" who always find money for fashionable clothes, cars, and drugs. Yes there is a minority who uses the program as intended, but they are far a few between.

This woman is an outlier.

What is more typical is fraud based on unreported income, hidden assets, or lies about household status. Do you have any idea how many unemployed single mothers are on food stamps because they don't report the presence of their well-employed live in boyfriend who has more than enough money to pay for food for his partner and children? Make these men take responsibility for their families instead of letting them loot the taxpayers by disappearing from a residence long enough for a food stamp application to go through.

Agreed. I was just trying to make a point to Glitch who insist there is an asset restriction when there isn't and saying they she committed fraud which isn't true according to the facts provided.

People "trade kids" all the time when they reach the earned income limit on their tax return. Fraud is pervasive. There is so much money involved though that people turn a blind eye.

wordgirl said:   I've got time for one more before I get back to work.

"Starving" might be an overstatement, but people are going hungry in this country. (The government came up with the lovely euphemism "food insecurity" for hunger, but read the definition of food insecurity and you'll see it's actually, well, hunger.)

Takeaway quote: "In 2010, 5.4 percent of households experienced food insecurity in the more severe range, described as very low food security, down from 5.7 percent in 2009."

Yes, bureaucrats came up with a broadly inclusive definition of "food insecurity" to justify their own jobs. A person who can only afford to visit McDonald's once daily would be classified as "food insecure" despite being more than able to make different choices.

"Food insecurity" should mean a true state of uncertainty, such as what was faced by those living in the Soviet Union. True "food insecurity" is when people can expect to go hungry despite making a reasonable effort at eating. Applying that term to a resident of Cabrini Green who buys crack instead of food is intellectually dishonest.

funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:   wordgirl said:   funkxl said:    The other niffty thing is you can use your FOOD STAMP WELFARE card at restaurants, or withdraw cash at casinos in CA. The system is quite perverse.

The rest of your post has been debunked by others, so I'll just dust this last bit of Rush-ian nonsense off.

SNAP benefits cannot be redeemed for cash. Not in a car, not in a bar, not in a plane, not on a train. You cannot cash them, SamIAm - they can only be used for groceries - food groceries, to be specific. You can buy a birthday cake with SNAP benefits - I'll give you that much. If "let them eat cake" chaps your butt, rage on, dude.

A small subset of the SNAP-eligible population (certain elderly, homeless and disabled people) can use their benefits card at restaurants in some states (California, Arizona, Michigan, Rhode Island, one county in Florida).

The casino thing, you have probably gotten tangled up with TANF benefits which are cash assistance payments - what people think of as "traditional" welfare - that goes only to families with children. The people who are squawking about this are not thinking things through. Where are most of the casinos in this nation? On Native American reservations. Where do you find the deepest, most persistent poverty in the nation? On Native American reservations. Outside of casinos, how many ATM machines do you think there are on most Native American reservations?

Actually an misinformed poster 'tried' to debunk me but failed in an epic fashion. SNAP benefits are sold for cash every day. There is pervasive fraud associated with the food stamp welfare benefit program. You want to give you money away fine...go ahead...but stop stealing mine.

Old-school "food stamps" were pretty easy to commit fraud with - you'd just sell them. EBT cards are WAY harder to use for fraud, it's much easier to catch people who use them fraudulently, and states continue to seek innovative ways to combat fraud. Nationally, the fraud rate is less than 1 percent, which is pretty dang low. That doesn't mean the government should stop looking for ways to combat fraud, since 1 percent fraud in a program that size is still pretty huge - but it doesn't make a single thing that you said true ... or at least, more than 1 percent true.
And I reiterate - "using fraud to gain eligibility" is not "being eligible". All this ranting seems to be driven by fraudulant uses of the program creating a false perception of the programs in general.

There is NO FRAUD in this particular circumstance to gain eligibility. THERE IS NOT ASSET REQUIREMENT. Technically this poor excuse for a women can LEGALLY maintain SNAP BENEFITS. Thus the reason MI is circumventing the federal law by creating the so called lotto winnings law.

http://www.frac.org/pdf/map_eliminating_asset_test.pdf Check the link and cry GLITCH.

These people steal our money through the front door and the back, the front door they take handouts, the backdoor we have to pay for increased law enforcement and prison upkeep. It is also a kick back to the grocery stors, and the food manufacturers who pander shit food to the 'helpless' "poor people" who always find money for fashionable clothes, cars, and drugs. Yes there is a minority who uses the program as intended, but they are far a few between.Wait - first you try to cite references claiming there is no assets test anywhere because it's a federal program, now you are citing references clearly showing it's a state-by-state decision. And of course, follow it up with another irrelavant rant about how you're always stuck taking it in the backdoor. Or something like that.

And if her case is completely legal, on what grounds did cut her off? Or are you saying she's now set to gain another windfall after suing the state for improperly denying her benefits?

jkimcpa said:   You must think people are pretty dumb. People are actually very resourceful and creative. People like you think you can socially engineer society but you can't. And lol@you for believing in gov't stats.

And jkimcpa, I rarely take you on because you usually confine your arguments to shouting "NUH-UH!!!!!!!!!!!! at the top of your lungs (and redding everything I say - I think you're the one who got me my Secret Admirer badge, so thanks!) but LOL at you for thinking that LOL is any kind of evidence in refutation. Got any solid PROOF that the government stats are wrong? Any reputable source?

.....

....

......................

Nope, didn't think so. I am perfectly willing to admit that there is a small amount of fraud. But it's not much compared to the overall size of the program, which does a powerful amount of good if you define "good" as "people being able to eat."

ajh5408 said:   There's what people can do and there's what people choose to do.

Think of what we could do if everyone were financially literate and socially responsible... But yeah, not going to happen, and no amount of government intervention will make it happen. The overhead to power such initiatives and drug test mostly innocent people is far higher than the amount saved by denying benefits to users. I understand you feel it would be a social victory, but it would not be a fiscal victory. I say that as someone who is both not a drug user and has never partaken in a welfare program...

If they instituted nicotine testing you'd see a hell of a lot of people give up the smokes in favor of food. People may whine and complain, but even most of those making chronically poor choices still possess the instinct of self preservation.

Money is fungible. If SNAP is covering food expenses then other funds can be sent up in smoke.

It would be a fiscal victory. Why should I work hard, pay an assload in taxes, only so someone on the dole doesn't have to choose between eating and servicing a nicotine habit?

wordgirl said:   And jkimcpa, I rarely take you on because you usually confine your arguments to shouting "NUH-UH!!!!!!!!!!!! at the top of your lungs (and redding everything I say - I think you're the one who got me my Secret Admirer badge, so thanks!) but LOL at you for thinking that LOL is any kind of evidence in refutation. Got any solid PROOF that the government stats are wrong? Any reputable source?

Nope, didn't think so. I am perfectly willing to admit that there is a small amount of fraud. But it's not much compared to the overall size of the program, which does a powerful amount of good if you define "good" as "people being able to eat."

The burden of proof lies with the party making the claim. The USDA bureaucrats have not offered any proof which overcomes the obvious deficiencies in their methodology. Why should their stats be considered any better than what came out of Ingsoc's MiniTru?

svr411 said:   ajh5408 said:   There's what people can do and there's what people choose to do.

Think of what we could do if everyone were financially literate and socially responsible... But yeah, not going to happen, and no amount of government intervention will make it happen. The overhead to power such initiatives and drug test mostly innocent people is far higher than the amount saved by denying benefits to users. I understand you feel it would be a social victory, but it would not be a fiscal victory. I say that as someone who is both not a drug user and has never partaken in a welfare program...It would be a fiscal victory. Why should I work hard, pay an assload in taxes, only so someone on the dole doesn't have to choose between eating and servicing a nicotine habit?Mandatory nicotine testing, even though it would ensnare more people than testing for other use indicators, would still be highly inefficient. You said yourself, the chemicals leave the body fairly quickly... How frequently do you want to test beneficiaries in relation to the frequency with which benefits are paid out?

Furthermore, since SNAP is based on income, how much of that income they spend on smokes, condoms, or anything else which may not be conducive to productivity is irrelevant.

I have no problem with her collecting benefits. She paid close to $500K in taxes from her winning shouldn't she have the right to claim some of that?