Food-Stamps

This Republican Congressman quoted the Bible to justify denying poor people food

  • Of all the lessons to be gleaned from the Bible, the one this Republican Congressman seems to have taken away is that it’s OK to starve poor people if they don’t have jobs.
  • During Tuesday’s House Committee on Agriculture hearing on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — or SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, which provides benefits to help low-income individuals and families, senior citizens, and people with disabilities afford food — Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-Tex.) quoted the New Testament during a conversation about work requirements for unemployed adults receiving SNAP benefits, the Washington Post reported on Friday.
  • The Post reports that Arrington was responding to an expert witness at the hearing who had referenced the Old Testament to make a case for the importance of feeding the poor. Read more. (3/31/17, 1:12 PM)

asthspace  asked:

If EBT could be used to buy anything, then what is the incentive to buy food with your own money? Why should the tax payers have to pay for welfare receivers to get luxury food???

Many people do not know this about me, but I have been on Snap benefits. I lost a job in 2009, shortly after the Great Recession, and I had nothing. I had to wait in lines at a food bank to get two small grocery bags of canned food, some toilet paper and a bar of soap a week and I applied for and received SNAP benefits. 

Let me tell you, there was no luxurious eating. Unless, you think a diet of pasta, rice, beans, canned veggies, canned tuna, peanut butter and bread IS opulent. If you think going down to the Wonder Bread factory and buying their expired products is lavish, being on SNAP is the life for you.

But even if I did buy as much expensive food as I could, who cares what anyone else eats? It is a set amount of money each month. If someone wants to blow all $126 they get a month on one meal, who am I to say no. They are the ones that are going to have to figure out how to eat for the remaining 89 meals that month.

Should we require that “Welfare” Recipients eat garbage so that you can feel better than them?

On average they get about $1.40 a meal in SNAP benefits. Basically, we are requiring them to eat garbage, but still, that seems like too much for you. 

- @theliberaltony


Just to stave off the stupid responses a bit: 

  • I spent less than a year on SNAP. 
  • Yes, I have a job now.
Because of what’s happening with immigration, they want to remain anonymous,” said the executive director of a suburban Maryland community center that works extensively with the undocumented population. She asked that her name and organization be withheld out of concerns that ICE might target it. “They just make do on menial amounts of food. They’re okay with rice and beans. I have parents who won’t even apply for free or reduced-price lunch, because it puts them on the radar.
npr.org
Trump Wants Families On Food Stamps To Get Jobs. The Majority Already Work
Some 55 percent of families with kids on SNAP have jobs — they just don't earn enough to live on.

People taking care of young children are working, taking care of children is work, they just are not getting paid wages for the work they do.  Society couldn’t run without all of the work that these “non-working” food stamp recipients do.

Also, as one of the non-working food stamp recipients, I’ll remind everyone that disabled people, elderly people, and young children make up a huge percentage of food stamp recipients (about two thirds).  And that there are a lot of disabled people who don’t have documentation or recognition by the welfare system and therefore don’t get counted as disabled in these statistics.

And people who could work, and aren’t already doing unwaged caretaking work, don’t just mystically not have jobs because of some bullshit about laziness, they are having trouble finding work, or could only find extremely dangerous low paid work, or couldn’t find work that would also allow them to take care of their children, or a million other reasons (including that capitalism requires a certain level of unemployment in order to make it easier to threaten workers and exploit them).

Non-working food stamp recipients are not less valuable.  We deserve to be treated with dignity and not as needing to be starved as punishment for whatever they think we need punished for today.  Everyone deserves food, you shouldn’t have to earn food by good behavior, it’s something everyone should get just by virtue of being human beings.

They insist that food stamps not be used for ready-to-eat meals, while still expecting poor people to eat healthy. Then, they say that you’re not really poor if you have a machine that can store food.

A microwave oven uses less than 5% of the energy that a conventional oven uses. Also, a microwave oven can cost only a few days of rent money. Apparently poor people are hated for conserving energy now.

Contrary to popular belief, a lot of poor people have jobs. Some need coffee to stay awake at work. They’re expected not to spend a few dollars a day at Starbucks for a “luxury” coffee, but now they’re also hated for making it at home.

PSA: Don't Be Ashamed of Using Food Stamps!

Here people just refer to it as EBT which I’m guessing is supposed to make it easier to say it out loud instead of “food stamps”. But I had an incident lately with a lady using her EBT card.

Usually I can see the back of the card and how it looks different and I don’t have to ask if it’s debit or credit or have them tell me it’s EBT.

But at this time I didn’t see the card and so I asked “Is it debit or credit?” And the lady said “debit. At the moment she said it I saw it was an EBT card and she corrected herself and quietly said "ebt”.

My point here is, if I had put in debit your card wouldn’t have gone through anyway and no one is gonna judge you for utilizing food stamps!
So please speak up or clearly show me the card if you truly feel uncomfortable saying it out loud.

washingtonpost.com
Trump to propose big cuts to safety net in new budget this week
The president will deliver his most detailed look at how he wants to change government.

Damian Paletta at WaPo

President Trump’s first major budget proposal on Tuesday will include massive cuts to Medicaid and call for changes to anti-poverty programs that would give states new power to limit a range of benefits, people familiar with the planning said, despite growing unease in Congress about cutting the safety net.

For Medicaid, the state-federal program that provides health care to low-income Americans, Trump’s budget plan would follow through on a bill passed by House Republicans to cut more than $800 billion over 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this could cut off Medicaid benefits for about 10 million people over the next decade.

The White House also will call for giving states more flexibility to impose work requirements for people in different kinds of anti-poverty programs, people familiar with the budget plan said, potentially leading to a flood of changes in states led by conservative governors. Many anti-poverty programs have elements that are run by both the states and federal government, and a federal order allowing states to stiffen work requirements “for able-bodied Americans” could have a broad impact in terms of limiting who can access anti-poverty payments — and for how long.

Numerous social-welfare programs grew after the financial crisis, leading to complaints from many Republicans that more should be done to shift people out of these programs and back into the workforce. Shortly after he was sworn in, Trump said, “We want to get our people off welfare and back to work. . . . It’s out of control.”

Trump’s decision to include the Medicaid cuts is significant because it shows he is rejecting calls from a number of Senate Republicans not to reverse the expansion of Medicaid that President Barack Obama achieved as part of the Affordable Care Act. The House has voted to cut the Medicaid funding, but Senate Republicans have signaled they are likely to start from scratch.

The proposed changes will be a central feature of Trump’s first comprehensive budget plan, which will be the most detailed look at how he aims to change government spending and taxes over his presidency. Although Trump and his aides have discussed their vision in broad brushes, this will be the first time they attempt to put specific numbers on many aspects of those plans, shedding light on which proposals they see making the biggest difference in reshaping government. Congress must approve of most changes in the plan before it is enacted into law.

Trump offered a streamlined version of the budget plan in March, but it dealt only with the 30 percent of government spending that is appropriated each year. In that budget, he sought a big increase in military and border spending combined with major cuts to housing, environmental protection, foreign aid, research and development.

But Tuesday’s budget will be more significant, because it will seek changes to entitlements — programs that are essentially on auto­pilot and don’t need annual authorization from Congress. The people describing the proposals spoke on the condition of anonymity because the budget had not been released publicly and the White House is closely guarding details.

The proposed changes include the big cuts to Medicaid. The White House also is expected to propose changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, though precise details couldn’t be learned. SNAP is the modern version of food stamps, and it swelled following the financial crisis as the Obama administration eased policies to make it easier for people to qualify for benefits. As the economy has improved, enrollment in the program hasn’t changed as much as many had forecast.

An average of 44 million people received SNAP benefits in 2016, down from a peak of 47 million in 2013. Just 28 million people received the benefits in 2008.

SNAP could be one of numerous programs impacted by changes in work requirements.

Josh Archambault, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Government Accountability, a conservative think tank, said that giving states the flexibility to impose work requirements could lead to a raft of changes to programs ranging from Medicaid to public housing assistance.

“One of the encouraging things about putting this in the budget is that states will see if it works,” he said. “States will try it.”

SNAP already has a work requirement, which typically cuts benefits for most able-bodied adults who don’t have children. But states were given more flexibility during the recent economic downturn to extend the benefits for a longer period, something that split conservatives at the time.

Michael Tanner, a welfare expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the U.S. government spends between $680 billion and $800 billion a year on anti-poverty programs, and considering wholesale changes to many of these initiatives is worthwhile, given questions about the effectiveness of how the money is spent.

‘We’re not seeing the type of gains we should be seeing for all that spending, and that would suggest its time to reform the system,” he said.

Many critics have said work requirements can include blanket ultimatums that don’t take into account someone’s age, physical or cognitive ability, or limitations put in place by the local economy. Benefits from these programs are often low, and hardly replace the income someone would earn from a job. And critics of stricter work requirements also believe it could pave the way for states to pursue even stricter restrictions, such as drug tests, that courts have often rejected.

After The Washington Post reported some of the cuts Sunday evening, Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Trump was pulling “the rug out from so many who need help.”

“This budget continues to reveal President Trump’s true colors: His populist campaign rhetoric was just a Trojan horse to execute long-held, hard-right policies that benefit the ultra wealthy at the expense of the middle class,” he said.

The proposed changes to Medicaid and SNAP will be just some of several anti-poverty programs that the White House will look to change. In March, the White House signaled that it wanted to eliminate money for a range of other programs that are funded each year by Congress. This included federal funding for Habitat for Humanity, subsidized school lunches and the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, which coordinates the federal response to homelessness across 19 federal agencies.

Leaked budget documents, obtained by the think tank Third Way, suggested other ways the White House plans to change anti-poverty funding. These documents show a change in the funding for Social Security’s Supplemental Security Income program, which provide cash benefits for the poor and disabled. It’s unclear, though, what those changes might look like. A White House official said the Third Way document was out-of-date and would not comment on specifics in their files.

Medicaid, SNAP and the SSI program are now classified as “mandatory” spending because they are funded each year without congressional approval.

[…]

Beyond an increase in the military budget and new money for border security, the White House is expected to call for $200 billion for infrastructure projects and an additional $25 billion over 10 years for a new program designed by Ivanka Trump that would create six weeks of parental leave benefits.

A reminder that you can be denied food stamps and other government assistance when you’re a felon. So let’s review this: as a felon you are unable to live in most homes and apartments. As a felon most employers will not hire you. As a felon, you don’t deserve food, low cost medical coverage, or money to help you get your life together.

You were making better money doing what made you a felon and if you have to go back to that I don’t even blame you.