Win lottery...stay on the dole

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The asset limit has been eliminated in almost every state that is an out of date website.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

http://chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dfs/foodstampsebt.htm (Updated 3/7/12)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (Updated 2/16/12)

Both the state of Kentucky and the USDA federal guidelines state the following for SNAP eligibility under the "Resources" subsection (in one form or another):

-$2000 or less in cash/liquid bank accounts; $3250 or less if one person in the household is over 60 or disabled (Neither explicitly define non-cash/non-liquid or other fixed assets)
-A home, its lot and contents do not count towards available resources (Neither explicitly define ownership of multiple homes/dwellings)
-Retirement plans/pensions do not count towards resources
-Value determination of vehicles as resources is done at the state level. In this example, Kentucky excludes vehicles entirely.

So sadly, it looks like Mr. Hyperbole is right. You couldn't have $1 trillion in the bank, but it looks as if it would be a judgment call as to whether you could have a pile of valuable assets with minimal income and still draw SNAP benefits.

ajh5408 said:   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.

Hair testing can establish timelines of substance usage. Additionally, once someone tests clean, then anything detected in the hair record proves they were a violator at one point.

The supposed moral argument for SNAP is that it prevents starvation. If someone can afford smokes then they can afford food, and therefore, are not at risk of starvation.

We have laws against burglary, even though those are not fiscally efficient. The government spends far more catching, prosecuting, and incarcerating thieves than it receives in fines and restitution from convicts. Why do we have these laws? Because the prohibited conduct is wrong. Burglars take advantage of others who earn their keep. Smokers on food stamps are doing the same thing.

funkxl said:   If they are 'disabled' deliver the food to their house in a big marked bus. Shame them a bit and maybe they'll decide its more productive to find gainful work.

You're wrongly assuming that these people have a sense of shame about what they're doing. You could have a neon orange double decker bus done up in the shape of a giant wedge of cheese with "GOVERNMENT CHEESE-MOBILE" painted down the side and the people fraudulently drawing government benefits would not care less.

I've been to areas in Appalachia that are just teeming with 2nd and 3rd generation government fraudsters, and they will talk openly about it. One even claimed his occupation as "an artist.....since he draws a check".

FKAKS said:   twinboston said:   funkxl said:   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

http://chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dfs/foodstampsebt.htm (Updated 3/7/12)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (Updated 2/16/12)

Both the state of Kentucky and the USDA federal guidelines state the following for SNAP eligibility under the "Resources" subsection (in one form or another):

-$2000 or less in cash/liquid bank accounts; $3250 or less if one person in the household is over 60 or disabled (Neither explicitly define non-cash/non-liquid or other fixed assets)
-A home, its lot and contents do not count towards available resources (Neither explicitly define ownership of multiple homes/dwellings)
-Retirement plans/pensions do not count towards resources
-Value determination of vehicles as resources is done at the state level. In this example, Kentucky excludes vehicles entirely.

So sadly, it looks like Mr. Hyperbole is right. You couldn't have $1 trillion in the bank, but it looks as if it would be a judgment call as to whether you could have a pile of valuable assets with minimal income and still draw SNAP benefits.


And do you really believe there is such a huge population of people living in million dollar houses driving bentlys who also collect food assisitance, to justify the unceasing hue and cry that food stamps are bankrupting America.

There are gaps and loopholes to any system, and when illuminated can occasionaly be rectified with minor policy revision. However instead of actually trying to "work" on fixing anything, it's easier to just deam it all a socialist plot and feel sorry for your horrible lot in life. (in between calling into talk radio stations, of course)

I wasn't making a moral judgment about whether or not continuing to fund government assistance is right or wrong. I was just clarifying what the requirements were.

Resolved:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10611511-michigan-no-food-stamps-for-1-million-lotto-winner

twinboston said:   funkxl said:   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

http://chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dfs/foodstampsebt.htm (Updated 3/7/12)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (Updated 2/16/12)

Both the state of Kentucky and the USDA federal guidelines state the following for SNAP eligibility under the "Resources" subsection (in one form or another):

-$2000 or less in cash/liquid bank accounts; $3250 or less if one person in the household is over 60 or disabled (Neither explicitly define non-cash/non-liquid or other fixed assets)
-A home, its lot and contents do not count towards available resources (Neither explicitly define ownership of multiple homes/dwellings)
-Retirement plans/pensions do not count towards resources
-Value determination of vehicles as resources is done at the state level. In this example, Kentucky excludes vehicles entirely.

So sadly, it looks like Mr. Hyperbole is right. You couldn't have $1 trillion in the bank, but it looks as if it would be a judgment call as to whether you could have a pile of valuable assets with minimal income and still draw SNAP benefits.I wouldnt say "right", as his claim is that there is no asset test, period, per federal regulations. He summarily dismissed assertions that only certain assets are excluded (namely, for not being easily liquidated, or because they're essential for earning income) and that the specifics vary by state.

Now I am curious - if you're only income is claiming $500/month in interest earnings, I wonder if you could claim the $600k in the bank that is earning that interest should be an excluded asset for being essential in producing your income?

Another this is Social Security funding covers more than just the normal payouts after you reach the current 'old age' point -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_%28United_States%29

Frankly, for something that's primarily funded on FICA, I'm surprised it's lasted this long with all the abuse. I know for a fact that one of my distant relatives seems to have convinced the govt that he had mental instabilities and couldn't thus work and was approved... outside of being a drunk in the past, he didn't really have any such disability... sigh.

So much waste in the govt sometimes... the whole dollar coin issue... that could've turned into something worthwhile if they stopped printing the actual dollar bills! :continues rant in his mind:

Edit: This thread is a now a top hit on Google for 'staying on the dole'

phrases.org.uk said: In the UK, Unemployment Benefit has been known by the slang term 'the dole' since WWI. This derives from the 'doling out', i.e. 'handing out' of charitable gifts of food or money. This dates back to at least 1919, when it was recorded in The Daily Mail:

"You won't draw your out-of-work dole of 29s. this week."

wordgirl said:   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."

Out of curiosity, when I was in Kroger last week and heard a guy yell "anybody selling food stamps", then a guy walked up to him and then Guy 1 handed Guy 2 cash and then Guy 2 bought Guy 1's groceries, was that included in the fraud statistics above? (Ignoring the obvious fact that stats aren't real time) Of course not. Nobody got caught, as far as the government knows, an EBT recipient bought groceries at a grocery store. No fraud there! Please tell me how you're supposed to accurately track an activity that somebody is trying to hide? It's impossible and you trumpeting those statistics like the government (in any meaningful way) knows how much is going on behind their back just makes you look flatly stupid.

Example number two, I was hanging out in a bar last night and talking to a girl sitting next to me (happens to be an attractive female who is paid almost completely in cash...mostly singles) and we were talking about money and the government and the like. She told me that as a single woman she makes 48-52k/year but since it's all in cash, she is eligible for over $900/month in food stamps. Do you think she's in your fraud statistics? Of course not! How would they be? Do you assume that the government calls up every food stamp recipient and asks if they are committing fraud (just to keep their statistics accurate)?

I can't wait to hear how you are sure that the government is tracking all illegal/fraudulent activity accurately.

Thanks OP. In 4 Welfare and Food Stamps!

ajh5408 said:   This only further proves how out of touch you are with reality. How much has policy changed in the past ten years? How many wars? How many recessions? How many unpredictable catastrophic events? Projections are just that: Projections based on current policy, not estimates that delve into the collective social psyche and try to predict everything that will happen. Those elements cannot be controlled for, and projections do not even attempt to do so. Your contempt for the "govaMINT" (who even says that?) is clouding your ability to debate the subject rationally. Things change, sure... But projections are ALWAYS skewed to benefit govt interests. TSA says there's a terrorist in every diaper. USDA says 30% of Americans are "food insecure" (wtf that means). Military says Iraq war would take a few months. Fed says inflation is 2%, prices say 9%... This isn't a hard game to play.

ajh5408 said:   Good grief... Maybe the government should setup farms and import African laborers to harvest the crops for next to nothing. Then we can feed people for pennies on the dollar... Yeah, those kids in Africa aren't eating even the most generic of generic government cheese... It's an entirely separate and incomparable issue. I think he was more arguing for states control over food stamp programs, than sustenance farming. I would agree with states running the programs and keeping more taxes local. Clearly things get fubared at a federal level and it is harder to fix/change than at state level.

Where can I find all these people living in poverty with food insecurity?

When I drive around town, the poor people I see are eating so much that they are morbidly obese with diabetes, often weighting in at 300+ pounds. At the grocery store I saw someone buy $200 in doughnuts, ice creme, and soda on food stamps on superbowl sunday.

Has anyone ever heard of someone starving to death in America because of actual poverty? I sure haven't. Not a situation where someone was anorexic or stuck in a remote wilderness location without any contact to civilization... but literally starved to death because of a lack of money, charity, or government handouts.

AdamW81 said:   What I found funny is they said she bought a 1 million dollar house along with a car, etc...on $500k total cash. I'll give 5 to 1 odds she is bankrupt and house is foreclosed on in less than 5 years. Takers?Something like 60% of all the big jackpot recipients have gone bankrupt, including one of the first NY state lottery winners (~$5M) and a person who won $17M in the Pennsylvania and started overspending in the first year: lottery winners who lost

Lottery winners who did not go bankrupt include a person who loved shoes and used her money to splurge on 6 pairs, and an avid gardener who bought an extra wheel barrel.

svr411 said:   A smoker on food stamps is exploiting the system to fund their own unnecessary luxury spending. They are also bringing the program into disrepute and transferring a certain stigma onto those who need the benefits and have made honest efforts to avoid being in such a situation in the first place.Then you should support lowering the income cap for benefits, not the institution of illicit drug, much less nicotine, testing. Isn't that the obvious and less expensive solution? Only those who don't make enough to spend money on cigarettes need apply. If you can afford luxury spending (i.e. cigarettes) under income cap X, then obviously that income cap is too high, right?

ajh5408 said:   So do you have something to say about deficit projections ten years ago, or are you going to parrot the anti-government talking points and continue to vote red on all my posts because it makes you feel better about your positions when you see those who disagree with you having a different colored bar over their words? ... You are master of the straw man. But I red your posts because they're factually incorrect and want to save other people's time by letting know such.

BUT FINE, see the attached, an absolutely perfect example of the BS the fed gubbermints spins with its projections, exactly what you were asking for that you (I guess you thought couldn't be found or your google is broke) AND from the NYT too (your favorite "news"?)... hat trick!

Dawgswin said:   I don't mean to be condescending, but have any of the people commenting (both sides) so intently about SNAP, TANF or other assistance programs actually worked in them?

There's a few things I've learned from being on the front lines and a bit higher up the chain. Keeping in mind of course I'm a mindless bureaucrat bent on social engineering while justifying my own job above all else.

1) Whether there is a problem with hunger in this nation is a subject that countless books have been written about. People tend to believe what they believe. One thing that seems to be true is that programs (whether government or privately funded) that distribute food through cash assistance or direct distribution do absolutely nothing to alleviate poverty or create lasting change. "When there's a handout, the line never ends..." is a pretty good rule of thumb.

2) Anyone who doesn't recognize that local food banks, distributors, soup kitchens (call it what you will) rely for the most part QUITE HEAVILY on various public funding sources is kidding themselves.

3) Anyone who does not recognize that food or cash assistance when coupled with comprehensive services such as health care, mental health care, job training and other assistance DOES work much better is also kidding themselves. Why not fund that? Sounds great...also very very expensive. Not as politically popular either...people understand and empathize a lot more with "feeding the hungry" more than they do helping an unproductive member of society get off the sauce and get trained for a job. People's words say they're all for job training programs...but my experience is that the electorate (and the elected) have very little idea what that really means or costs.

4) Drug testing for welfare benefits (as well as a variety of other screenings) is about as helpful as teats on a boar. It is nearly impossible to do effectively and for the most part is a political tool. The fundamental question to ask the electorate is whether or not they believe someone addicted to drugs deserves public assistance? Is that person just weak and evil? Is that person deserving of help? Should they only be helped if they WANT to become a more productive member of society? How do you ensure that? By the way, what IS a productive member of society?

5) Again, as someone who has been around this industry (and do not be mistaken, it is an industry) for a while, I cannot deny the universal truth that some people are poor because they choose to be. I'm not saying it's most people or all people who we would consider "poor," but it is some. With that said, I've also learned very well that terms like "underemployed," "transient," "poor," "working poor," and "vunerable citizens," are completely meaningless.

Everything you say here makes a great deal of sense, which is probably why you didn't get a lot of response.

I don't much like the current system either. If you custom-built a system to keep people dependent on government handouts, it would not look much different than what we have now. (And you can substitute "giant corporations" for "people" in that previous sentence and it will be just as true.)

The good news is that, for the most part, the American welfare system fails at keeping people dependent on the system. Even in this crappy economy, most recipients of benefits (particularly programs like SNAP and TANF) still only stay in the program for relatively short periods of time, and those are exactly the sorts of people who would benefit from the relatively expensive (but short-term) "teach-a-man-to-fish" programs you describe. Unfortunately, those are politically popular to talk about, but once the news coverage dies down, the program tends to shrivel away to a meaningless shell of itself. (I had a front-row seat to some of the nation's first welfare-to-work programs. They were awesome, and really succeeded in turning lives around. Unfortunately, they quickly dissolved into another bureaucratic morass of regulations and underfunding once the news cameras were gone.)

I'm not even sure how we could fix it, except on a micro level .... I used to be a diehard opponent of block-granting social programs, but the only real, lasting innovations I've seen have come through state- and local-controlled programs that are forced to make the most of every dollar.

(And no, I have never worked "in the system," but I have done a lot of policy work in my career that brought me in close contact with people on the front lines. Some of them, I have tremendous respect for. Others, not so much.)

JTFH said:   ... You are master of the straw man. But I red your posts because they're factually incorrect and want to save other people's time by letting know such.Evidently I'm far too courteous on these forums, because despite your numerous factual missteps, I haven't done the same to you... Guess I'm more confident that my arguments can stand on their own, while yours are backed by flippant language and parroted talking points. Speaking of...BUT FINE, see the attached, an absolutely perfect example of the BS the fed gubbermints spins with its projections, exactly what you were asking for that you (I guess you thought couldn't be found or your google is broke) AND from the NYT too (your favorite "news"?)... hat trick!You just keep proving my point over and over... A projection is based on current law. The fact that you don't understand that is your fault of knowledge, not my fault of logic. The projections issued in January 2001 came before two massive rounds of tax cuts and two massive wars, to say the least of the inexplicable decisions made during the ensuing years. That's not government propaganda, that's the consequence of politics.

wordgirl said:   
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.

Actually its easier than ever before. What people do now is make deals with their friends/family members/random people standing outside the grocery store to buy their groceries up to the EBT maximum and then the other person gives them cash at some percentage - say, someone with a $200 EBT limit buys my groceries and once we get out of the store I hand him $150 in cash. He gets the cash, I just saved $50. This is nearly impossible to track, and the USDA knows this, they also don't like to talk about it so that it doesn't become more wide spread. The "less than 1% of fraud" line is specifically misleading - thats the number they get from computer analysis of EBT data. While the USDA is certainly to be lauded for trying to prevent fraud by analyzing their data to find irregularities, the amount of fraud they find doing that is in no way close to the real amount of fraud occurring.

Of course, this is also somewhat of a big catch-22: minimizing fraud costs more taxpayer money, and given the average benefit amount we are talking about you are not likely to be able to stop more in program fraud than the cost it takes to find the abuse to begin with.

wordgirl said:   Dawgswin said:   I don't mean to be condescending, but have any of the people commenting (both sides) so intently about SNAP, TANF or other assistance programs actually worked in them?

There's a few things I've learned from being on the front lines and a bit higher up the chain. Keeping in mind of course I'm a mindless bureaucrat bent on social engineering while justifying my own job above all else.
....


Everything you say here makes a great deal of sense, which is probably why you didn't get a lot of response.

I don't much like the current system either. If you custom-built a system to keep people dependent on government handouts, it would not look much different than what we have now. (And you can substitute "giant corporations" for "people" in that previous sentence and it will be just as true.)
It is because that post simply repeats "butter is buttery" mantra. If it were true, then why would not be a reason to turn 100% of the income to the government and have the government provide all the necessities.

funkxl said:   Glitch99 said:   twinboston said:   funkxl said:   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

http://chfs.ky.gov/dcbs/dfs/foodstampsebt.htm (Updated 3/7/12)
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm (Updated 2/16/12)

Both the state of Kentucky and the USDA federal guidelines state the following for SNAP eligibility under the "Resources" subsection (in one form or another):

-$2000 or less in cash/liquid bank accounts; $3250 or less if one person in the household is over 60 or disabled (Neither explicitly define non-cash/non-liquid or other fixed assets)
-A home, its lot and contents do not count towards available resources (Neither explicitly define ownership of multiple homes/dwellings)
-Retirement plans/pensions do not count towards resources
-Value determination of vehicles as resources is done at the state level. In this example, Kentucky excludes vehicles entirely.

So sadly, it looks like Mr. Hyperbole is right. You couldn't have $1 trillion in the bank, but it looks as if it would be a judgment call as to whether you could have a pile of valuable assets with minimal income and still draw SNAP benefits.I wouldnt say "right", as his claim is that there is no asset test, period, per federal regulations. He summarily dismissed assertions that only certain assets are excluded (namely, for not being easily liquidated, or because they're essential for earning income) and that the specifics vary by state.

Now I am curious - if you're only income is claiming $500/month in interest earnings, I wonder if you could claim the $600k in the bank that is earning that interest should be an excluded asset for being essential in producing your income?

It's okay to admit you're are wrong, because you are glitch. The whole time you've been talking about MI & PA, MI has zero ASSET restriction nor does PA, including assets such as liquid cash. Most states have zero Asset restriction, whereas before the current administration an ASSET restriction was required BY EVERY STATE.

Oh 'SNAP' you've been owned.So then what does a law requiring the lottery to report large winners to DSS accomplish, if the results of their winning has zero effect on their ongoing eligibility for benefits? Are you claiming they're pretending to do something about it without actually doing anything about it? And that their current suspension of her benefits is actually illegal on their part?

And FYI, your attempts to gloat via PM arent really helping you any...

If the person has assets in the bank and collect interest or if they have mutual funds with capital gains these are to be reported as income. I also don't understand why there are no assets limits, but why should a person w/ four kids and makes $19,000 get benefits just because they have no assets and never saved, and the person and has 4 kids who worked and make $19,000 and put a little aside each week be dis quilifyed. What is the break point in assets? and when should benefits be taken away?? If a person puts away $50 a month from the time they are 18 intill they retire they could end up w/ a million $$, while the other person making the same money just spent every penny? Why should they get benefits for not holding on to their money?