Food Stamps

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

I'll say up front that I do not follow politics or political structure at all so I may be ill-informed here but I'm under the impression that a great deal of state programs receive federal funding. Take away the federal funds and the programs would likely cease to exist.

I must ask, where does the federal government get the money to fund anything? It is likely that states and individuals are struggling due to their money going to the bottomless pit of Washington.

[disneysteve]

[QUOTE=maat55;278181]

I must ask, where does the federal government get the money to fund anything?

From taxes, of course. I guess I'm just becoming more sensitive to this issue living in NJ now where numerous programs are being cut all around us due to drops in federal funding that previously supported the programs.

On a related note, I heard a great quote from Dave Ramsey today. He said, "When we the people start taking care of we the people, we'll put the government out of business."

[Seeker]

Yes. New Jersey is a mess. They have outspent their revenues and tried to tax their way out of it, running high earning individuals and businesses out of the state. There is a reckoning coming. This does not mean that Oklahomans, who, as Seeker has pointed out have a balanced budget and can take care of their food stamp recipients, if they should choose to do so (and who I think would), should have to pay for irresponsibility in New Jersey.

Also, if teachers in New Jersey had agreed to a one year pay freeze (not a pay cut, a pay freeze) and contribute 1.5% of the cost of their health insurance (it is currently free for them), there wouldn't have been any teacher layoffs. The teachers themselves voted to reject that compromise, which led to the layoffs.

Except for Vermont, every state has some form of a "balanced budget" law.

DS is correct, many State programs would cease to exist if Federal aid were reduced or eliminated.

The majority of state income comes from property taxes. The housing crisis and the following declining values continue to cause the majority of the state budgeting problems. 46 state this year have shortfalls.

States Continue to Feel Recession’s Impact — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

This above site is kept up-to-date.

Sharply constrained budgets in 2011. To balance their 2011 budgets, states had to address fiscal year 2011 gaps totaling $130 billion, or 20 percent of budgets in 46 states. Most did so with spending cuts and revenue increases. This total is likely to grow over the course of the fiscal year, which started July 1 in most states. The fact that the gaps have been filled and budgets are balanced does not end the story. Families hit hard by the recession will experience the loss of vital services throughout the year, and the negative impact on the economy will continue.

I did not intend to suggest that any state should "pay" for another. All I was intending to point out is that indeed, many states cannot afford Food Stamps, or feeding any of it's poor.

Most revenue to the states comes from property taxes. Most revenue to the government comes from people taxes.

Monies flow back and forth from states to gov't to states, etc. Declining values of homes and the glut properties not being sold; are the driving force behind State cuts.

It's all a viscious circle; but ultimately the States of the USA can no more afford Food Stamps than the gov't can.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

From taxes, of course. I guess I'm just becoming more sensitive to this issue living in NJ now where numerous programs are being cut all around us due to drops in federal funding that previously supported the programs.

Those taxes could have been collected by the states or stayed in the pockets of the people.

On a related note, I heard a great quote from Dave Ramsey today. He said, "When we the people start taking care of we the people, we'll put the government out of business.

I caught some of him today on Laura Ingrams show. He had mentioned that the government has replaced the individuals sense of charity with government programs.

As the Founders believed, only a moral populace can be free, a secular society will need a master(big government).

[Seeker]

Alright guys, the SNAP program is 100% paid for food-wise by the gov't.

But each and every State pays for 50% of the costs to implement this program in their State; the other half of the implementation costs each state is also borne by the gov't.

Suppost the gov't says to each state: "We're broke, we are no longer going to fund SNAP for your poverty/disabled, etc. population." What do you honestly think would be the result?

States saying: "Oh well, the gov't won't fund the food. We don't need to fund the folks employed in implementing this anymore. Great, now we have some dollars back again."

Until the economy crashed... this program excluded adults. Now because of a lack of work, there are adults without children in this program.

But the majority of the participants in this program are with children.

Would you guys have poverty striken families with children starve?

---

We all know there's waste and abuse of systems/programs. There's waste all over this this world.

But there's also good things that come out of SNAP; there's people who do get their lives back in order. There children that at least will not be forced to starve if their adult(s) get their act back together.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

Alright guys, the SNAP program is 100% paid for food-wise by the gov't.

But each and every State pays for 50% of the costs to implement this program in their State; the other half of the implementation costs each state is also borne by the gov't.

Suppost the gov't says to each state: "We're broke, we are no longer going to fund SNAP for your poverty/disabled, etc. population." What do you honestly think would be the result?

Your missing the important point. The government has 0 to give. Anything it does give is taken from the states and people. It is more efficient for the states and people to provide their own needs.

The only reason we have a federal government is to attend to issues that are national in nature. Oklahoma cannot build enough defense to stave off Russia, thus we unite for defense. The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal government while providing utmost freedom to the people. This does not exist today.

Example: say you live in a neighborhood, and it establishes a neighborhood association fund. You are expected to keep up your property, and the fund(you pay into) is used to maintain the streets and other aesthetics. But over time, say a few of your neighbors fall behind on keeping up their property due to lack of resources, so the neighborhood asso. steps in and does it for them. Suddenly, you notice more houses are letting the fund do it for them, yet you keep doing your part.

Is the Neighborhood asso. really doing its job? The association should have stayed to its original intent and allow the neighbors to help each other, to maintain a stable neighborhood.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Seeker, I don't think this changes your point, but I think you are mistaken about where the majority of most states' incomes are from. Rather than property tax, I think it is usually income tax (including some form of corporate tax) plus sales tax that provide most income. Some states also get a significant amount from other sources such as road tolls and special taxes such as on communications. Of course, your point that all that state income is dampened by a recession and unemployment still stands.

My understanding is that most property taxes are collected even more locally by cities, towns, counties, or metropolitan districts, or sometimes even directly by school districts when they are separate entities from the cities , towns, counties, etc. The even closer to home than state governments are the ones whose income are most directly hurt by the decline of housing values.

Regarding foodstamps (SNAP), I think you were saying that previously only children were covered by the program. That is not correct. Adults, including married and single adults, were eligible for foodstamps according to income even before the recession. Just an interesting note: You probably have heard that a large portion of people eligible for foodstamps (SNAP) do not ever apply for them. Even is this time of high unemployment, that has remained true. There are some people who get by without them, though they qualify.

[Seeker]

Your missing the important point. The government has 0 to give. Anything it does give is taken from the states and people.

The whole point to me Maat, is that the States and local entites in the most part, CANNOT afford to provide for the poor either. What exactly would you have them do? Tax more? Where do you think the monies from taxes will go? To feed the poor? LOL. If the gov't withdraws this program, the states will not pay for it either. There will be more unemployment as more people operating this program will cease to function.

In my view, if I have not been explicit enough, is that the government has taken on the role of redistribution of monies in many thousands of ways, mostly because the States and Local gov't have not been able to do so. If someone is not pressured make right some of the greed and misuse of dollars, then the "control" passes on to the gov't. Bottom line, this is what I believe.

I know there's abuse everywhere. Gov't, State, Business, EVERYWHERE. But without control, without monitoring, at some powerful level, this country may be headed down a path that it will never recover from.

Regarding foodstamps (SNAP), I think you were saying that previously only children were covered by the program. That is not correct. Adults, including married and single adults, were eligible for foodstamps according to income even before the recession. Just an interesting note: You probably have heard that a large portion of people eligible for foodstamps (SNAP) do not ever apply for them. Even is this time of high unemployment, that has remained true. There are some people who get by without them, though they qualify.

According to the below, most DINKs are (or more properly now) were limited to three months on this program

Policy Basics: Introduction to the Food Stamp Program — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Unemployed childless adults are limited to three months of food stamps in many areas of the country (however in most states this rule is currently suspended because of the economic downturn).

Also disabled, elderly, etc are NOT excluded. It does indeed depend on income Joan -- you are correct.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

The whole point to me Maat, is that the States and local entites in the most part, CANNOT afford to provide for the poor either. What exactly would you have them do? Tax more? Where do you think the monies from taxes will go? To feed the poor? LOL. If the gov't withdraws this program, the states will not pay for it either. There will be more unemployment as more people operating this program will cease to function.

Are you suggesting that the federal government has a money tree? I've suggested on numerous occations to have the states provide basics. That means a cot in a gym, beans and rice and shared showers and restrooms(separating men and women).

This will attract only the very needy, the rest will be motivated to provide for themselves first, seek help from family or go to charities.

In my view, if I have not been explicit enough, is that the government has taken on the role of redistribution of monies in many thousands of ways, mostly because the States and Local gov't have not been able to do so.

Redistribution is not the answer to anything. It is not the job of any government to take from one individual and give to another, that is called theft.

If someone is not pressured make right some of the greed and misuse of dollars, then the "control" passes on to the gov't. Bottom line, this is what I believe.

We have a court system for making things right. The more money stays in the control of the earner, the better it is put to use. Allowing the federal government to take vasts amounts of money to control is extremely inefficient and allows for massive abuse.

I know there's abuse everywhere. Gov't, State, Business, EVERYWHERE. But without control, without monitoring, at some powerful level, this country may be headed down a path that it will never recover from.

You have got to be kidding. Where is it going now?

[Seeker]

Are you suggesting that the federal government has a money tree? I've suggested on numerous occations to have the states provide basics. That means a cot in a gym, beans and rice and shared showers and restrooms(separating men and women).

This will attract only the very needy, the rest will be motivated to provide for themselves first, seek help from family or go to charities.

Redistribution is not the answer to anything. It is not the job of any government to take from one individual and give to another, that is called theft.

We have a court system for making things right. The more money stays in the control of the earner, the better it is put to use. Allowing the federal government to take vasts amounts of money to control is extremely inefficient and allows for massive abuse.

You have got to be kidding. Where is it going now?

What did the states do before the Food Stamp program was started?

IMO, the money I've paid to taxes in whatever form, is no longer mine. The monies I give, are no longer mine. I can only control what I have to some extent.

I'm not going to argue the facts with you. There's no point; I can only frustrate myself and further frustrate you.

[maat55]

What did the states do before the Food Stamp program was started?

IMO, the money I've paid to taxes in whatever form, is no longer mine. The monies I give, are no longer mine. I can only control what I have to some extent.

I'm not going to argue the facts with you. There's no point; I can only frustrate myself and further frustrate you.

There are principles in maximizing outcomes whether it be in personal finance or feeding the hungry.

The most important aspect is to motivate the individual to do for themselves first.
Second is to have multiple agencies(50 states and numerous local entities) developing efficient ways to provide for the truly needy.

Having a federal government handing out food cards with no requirements on the recipient is not a viable solution, IMO.

If the federal government were to end its programs, recipients, families,churches, communities, charities and states would have no problem feeding the hungry.

I have no problem with temporary programs during large national disasters, but they should end within a reasonable time frame.

I have a long answer as to why the federal government should stay as small as possible, this would include staying out of housing, education, healthcare and retirement as well, but this is not the place for that discussion.

We only disagree about how to see to the needy, but we both want the same outcome.

[snafu]

Last night 6 pm news: American Family of 4 on SNAP [food stamp program] gets $668. per month [$8,016 per yr.]; 48,000,000 on the program, highest level yet. Our family of 4 spend just under $500. per month for food [doesn't include non edibles like soap,tp etc] in a HCL area with two teens [and friends] who eat incredible amounts of food!

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

If the federal government were to end its programs, recipients, families,churches, communities, charities and states would have no problem feeding the hungry.

I'm not so sure about that. Before foodstamps, yes, people did starve in the US. Whether those you name were able to feed them or not, I don't know. But one way or another there were many who did not get fed, or fed healthily.

I was just reading a story yesterday about a WWII veteran in my state, who was drafted into the army and at age 19 was glad to get the 3 meals a day. POKIN AROUND: POW first in county to claim tax exemption Previous to that, the work had been insufficient and getting enough food was difficult. The article says that this 19 year old was grateful for the food, but also felt fated to die in the war. Certainly, that thought would be in the mind of most any soldier, but chronic hunger, chronic inability to better yourself, can make you swallow a self-image of being unable to have a say in your destiny.

My parents can tell me stories of what it was like during the Depression when so many people had no work, despite willingness. There was definitely hunger and local efforts could not meet it. My Dad knows what it is like to have people come to his doorstep day after day asking for food and begging for a day's work. (Fortunately his father was well employed through the Depression.) My mother can tell me what is was like being a child whose mother moved them hundreds of miles away to be that person landing on a relative's (thank goodness) doorstep asking for food and shelter. My FIL can tell me what is was like to live in an orphanage not because he was an orphan, but because his father simply could not feed him. And in the orphanage there was not enough food either....I mention this to show that hunger was not always fixed by the states and smaller entities. The problem was bigger than them. It was a national --no, world wide-- economic problem.

And there was a lot of malnutrition, too. I'm 52 and grew up with nutrition education in grade school that included some diseases of malnutrition that are rare now: Rickets, beriberi, pellagra, protein deficient wasting, profound anemia, pernicious anemia, iodine deficient goiter, scurvy, kwashiorkor, postnatal mental retardation. When I was in school in the 1960's these diseases were still fresh in the national memory and foodstamps were new. The thought was that kids needed to know about these diseases of malnutrition. These things are real.

Some of the disease of malnutrition in the US was addressed in part by enrichment of common foods. Some by the amazingly (from a historical perspective) cheaper availability of all foods in the last five decades. Some by food stamps, commodities distribution, nutrition education, and the WIC programs. Yes, religious groups, unions, and sometimes cities had soup lines/ bread lines, but the food was not always adequate either in amount or quality. And in the Depression, it was mostly men, not women or children who benefited from the bread lines. The states did have a "general relief" cash payments for some unemployed but not nearly enough money to provide it for all the hungry.

An early 1960's book, The Other America by Michael Harrington, opened many eyes to the fact that the problem of hunger did not end with the Depression. Even in the early 1960's hunger was still a real problem. Despite the booming economy, despite small scale private aid programs, hunger was still a problem. The knowledge that the rising tide and not really lifted all boats was one of the things that led citizens to want national programs like foodstamps and Medicare. It was in a matter of national pride, but also compassion and perhaps even fear of what could happen if you leave a starving underclass that led to wide support of federal anti-poverty programs. As my uncle would say, "Ya don't leave your buddies behind."

Sorry for the rambling. Guess you can tell I'm not in favor of flat out closing down the foodstamps program.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Last night 6 pm news: American Family of 4 on SNAP [food stamp program] gets $668. per month [$8,016 per yr.]; 48,000,000 on the program, highest level yet. Our family of 4 spend just under $500. per month for food [doesn't include non edibles like soap,tp etc] in a HCL area with two teens [and friends] who eat incredible amounts of food!

I don't doubt what you heard but, it is still a general statement that might be true only rarely. Not all families of 4 get them same amount of foodstamps. Using the link I gave DisneySteve above, I see that the average family of three in my state was getting $206 in 2007. At $68 per person, I would extrapolate that to $292 for a family of 4 in order to compare it with the number you heard on TV. I could be wrong. I'm finding it difficult to find solid info with all the terms well defined and up to date.

PS. Oops, that was in another thread that I gave a link. Here it is now. NCCP | Missouri: Food Stamps There's a drop down menu at upper right to look up all states.

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

Sorry to be a thread hog, but I finally found some up to date info straight from the US Department of Agriculture which administers food stamps. This info also ties together what Snafu heard on Canadian television, yay.

"The average SNAP household received a
monthly benefit of $272. More than 37 percent
received the maximum benefit for their family size
--$588 for a family of four during the first half of
the year and $668 after the implementation of
ARRA.* Just over 4 percent received the minimum
benefit available to households with one or two
members in 2009. The minimum benefit was $14
during the first half of the year and increased to
$16 with ARRA.* Most households (81 percent)
receiving the minimum benefit contained elderly
or disabled members and were likely to receive
Supplemental Security Income or Social Security."

*That's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of spring, 2009.

Source: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Studies