Food Stamps

[nick__45]

The food stamps program is run by the Department of Agriculture. The Secretary of the Department of Agriculture is a presidential cabinet position. While it is true that the constitution does not mention anything called a "cabinet" nor anything called a "secretary" (except in the signatures: William Jackson, Secretary) it does mention executive departments, which is what the cabinet members are in charge of. The heads of executive departments is mentioned in the constitution. Executive departments carry out the law; they execute the law. Congress funds the food stamps program through the executive/cabinet department. Cabinet positions started with George Washington. Food stamps do have legal standing: law. Congress funds it and the executive branch runs it.

The world has changed immensely since the constitution was written in 1787. I personally do not believe it would be possible to still be a country in these times without expansion of the government beyond what it was in 1787. I wonder if we would not look something like "modern" Afghanistan if we stood still for the intervening 223 years. The fact that the constitution allows for amendments and even repeal of amendments offers internal confirmation that people can desire to change, add, or delete fundamentals.

Do you believe that gun rights are draconian ideology as well?

[nick__45]

I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar and I don't pretend to be. I'm just the person who has to contend with the reality of society today; that there are people who really do not have anyone else to take care of them and I believe it is our collective responsibility to help these people, not hide behind arguments about constitutional powers and whether or not they should be able to have a Coke. Would you prefer they lay out in the streets begging? Is that the vision of the US you have in mind? I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a very pleasant place to live.



And it is equally foolish to believe that state and local governments are able to do so without the help of the feds. The truth is Maat, state and federal government are interdependent. The states and local governments receive federal help for everything from roads to schools to medical care. Even in red states like the one I live in, they are heavily dependent on federal dollars to keep us from turning into our own little third world country. And for all the pandering that politicians do to people like you, the legislators know it. They know better.

Actually, the feds do help the states. The feds just redistribute the money they take from the state residents and decide who gets what and often the feds are misguided by states' reps and lobbyists.

[maat55]

[QUOTE]

I have no idea. I'm not a constitutional scholar and I don't pretend to be. I'm just the person who has to contend with the reality of society today; that there are people who really do not have anyone else to take care of them and I believe it is our collective responsibility to help these people, not hide behind arguments about constitutional powers and whether or not they should be able to have a Coke. Would you prefer they lay out in the streets begging? Is that the vision of the US you have in mind? I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like a very pleasant place to live.

States, communities, charities, churches, families and friends can easily take care of the truly needy. The federal government only defines welfare and provides a cookie cutter approach that is massively abused.

The only people I see lying in the streets are drug addicts and alcoholics who choose to do so.

And it is equally foolish to believe that state and local governments are able to do so without the help of the feds. The truth is Maat, state and federal government are interdependent. The states and local governments receive federal help for everything from roads to schools to medical care. Even in red states like the one I live in, they are heavily dependent on federal dollars to keep us from turning into our own little third world country. And for all the pandering that politicians do to people like you, the legislators know it. They know better.

The federal governments only commission is to defend the rights of individuals and protect the nation and property rights.

The states and people are to take care of their own food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education.

It is insane to give people food in a desert, give them suitcases.

[b4freedom]

This is relevant: The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

[Joan.of.the.Arch]

B4fredom, I read your link and found I had a lot of skepticism about its claims and questions about its methods, so I I went to the original source cited, Wyatt Emmerich of the clevelandcurrent.com Well, there is no Wyatt Emmerich at the ClevelandCurrent.com He does not even come up in a search at their online publication.

[b4freedom]

B4fredom, I read your link and found I had a lot of skepticism about its claims and questions about its methods, so I I went to the original source cited, Wyatt Emmerich of the clevelandcurrent.com Well, there is no Wyatt Emmerich at the ClevelandCurrent.com He does not even come up in a search at their online publication.

Good point. However I noticed that there website has virtually no content. They are just a local paper. So, I wrote them to get more information. I will let you know the results.

I don't agree with all of the claims made in the article. However I know that there was a study done in 1995 and again in 2000 about basic "entitlement" programs and their cash values. The conclusion of both was that your disposable income decreased as your salary increased from about 27,000 to 35,000. Above 35,000 and your disposable income increased again. That became a welfare "trap". (I'm not certain of the exact amounts, I'm just doing this off of memory. I'll look up the original study.) I also know that Canada is testing a "guaranteed" minimum income to replace welfare services. The basic idea is to just give people money instead of paying for welfare programs.

I work in a very poor urban area and I have family members that work with various social programs. I know there are a lot of people who desperately need these social services. There are also those that absolutely abuse it.

My overall problem is that I see abuse and I see the minimum wage. If total welfare benefits exceed minimum wage multiplied by 60 to 80 hours a week then what is the point of working? If it's easier to abuse the system then to be honest then you should expect people to abuse it. I believe that the system is systemically designed through complex bureaucracy to encourage poor people to stay poor. And I believe that the middle class pays for it. I also believe that when someone who is middle class falls into poverty they don't have the "skills" necessary to navigate and take maximum advantage of the complex "system" designed to be their "safety net". A family that grows up knowing and working the system can navigate it easily.

[disneysteve]

If total welfare benefits exceed minimum wage multiplied by 60 to 80 hours a week then what is the point of working?

This is exactly the problem. I work in a very poor city and I see this all the time. People who are perfectly capable of working choose not to because as soon as they go back to work, they lose their benefits - health care, food stamps, energy assistance, medical transportation, etc. So they stay on welfare. I can't say that I blame them under the circumstances. Get a job and lose your health insurance. Most of them simply couldn't afford to give that up due to chronic health problems.

[nick__45]

Good point. However I noticed that there website has virtually no content. They are just a local paper. So, I wrote them to get more information. I will let you know the results.

I don't agree with all of the claims made in the article. However I know that there was a study done in 1995 and again in 2000 about basic "entitlement" programs and their cash values. The conclusion of both was that your disposable income decreased as your salary increased from about 27,000 to 35,000. Above 35,000 and your disposable income increased again. That became a welfare "trap". (I'm not certain of the exact amounts, I'm just doing this off of memory. I'll look up the original study.) I also know that Canada is testing a "guaranteed" minimum income to replace welfare services. The basic idea is to just give people money instead of paying for welfare programs.

I work in a very poor urban area and I have family members that work with various social programs. I know there are a lot of people who desperately need these social services. There are also those that absolutely abuse it.

My overall problem is that I see abuse and I see the minimum wage. If total welfare benefits exceed minimum wage multiplied by 60 to 80 hours a week then what is the point of working? If it's easier to abuse the system then to be honest then you should expect people to abuse it. I believe that the system is systemically designed through complex bureaucracy to encourage poor people to stay poor. And I believe that the middle class pays for it. I also believe that when someone who is middle class falls into poverty they don't have the "skills" necessary to navigate and take maximum advantage of the complex "system" designed to be their "safety net". A family that grows up knowing and working the system can navigate it easily.

Give this man a a cold and tall one because he knows exactly what he's talking about. Middle class people pay for the benefits others enjoy but middle classes people can't receive those benefit because they don't know the right language to work the system. Additionally, people of middle class value tend to have less than 2 children because they can't afford to have kids and this, along with being married, hurt them severely when they apply for assistance. In most cases, they can't get assistance because there is a line and people who have been on the system or was part of a family that was on the system get the first cut. Additionally, those people processing the applications don't like dealing with middle class because they envy the middle class so the middle class is screwed.

The same can be said about unemployment benefit. There is plenty of abuse there and many people don't get the benefit they paid into because they don't know the right language to use on the application.

[nick__45]

Surely that could be done electronically. Swipe the card at the start of the transaction. Scan each item. Any item disallowed under the plan would be indicated immediately and have to be put back or paid for in cash.

I've also seen little shelf tags in the supermarket indicating that certain items were WIC-eligible. They could do the same with food stamp-eligibile items.

Common sense doesn't work here dude. If there was an common sense, there would not be reward for recklessness of having multiple kids from multiple guys with no future planning at all.

[snafu]

Middle class people pay for the benefits others enjoy but middle classes people can't receive those benefit because they don't know the right language to work the system. unemployment benefit...There is plenty of abuse there and many people don't get the benefit they paid into because they don't know the right language to use on the application.

If you have insurance for your home, it is important for you to know your coverage, what it will pay for, what action you must take to access benefits. In most cases if you make 3 claims in 5 yrs, you will be cancelled. If you have a car, you need to know exactly what insurance will and will not pay. If you suffer a hit and run, what action do you have to take to make a claim with your insurer. If you are employed, eligible for Unemployment Insurance benefits, you need to know the claims procedure and eligibility requirements BEFore you abruptly find yourself unemployed.

I doubt welfare beneficiaries are smarter than readers of SA. There is a lot of information on internet that explains the plethora of government programs municipal, state and federal that you might access. The library is another free source. All the politicians have staff that should be able to explain programs or send you the information you ask for.

[lrjohnson]

.....

[Mr Nice Guy]

The whole foodstamps issue bothers me for sure. I work at a grocery store as a checker, i've seen the bad cases, and I have seen the good cases. However, anger at EBT recipients is not productive ok. If anything we should be good stewards of our financial knowledge and try to educate (at an appropriate time, of course.) We need to go after the people that regulate this. This is one stance I too take a conservative approach on. Washington D.C. doesn't know what my state, Colorado, really needs. Hopefully our new Congress will do work. We are not a socialistic nation!

[GrimJack]

This is relevant: The Head Of A Household Of Four Making Minimum Wage Has More Disposable Income Than A Family Making $60,000 A Year

I do not understand how they define disposable income - standard definition goes "The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid, available for spending and saving." I did not see any income left for saving and very little of that was available for spending unless you define spending as money whose use is predetermined with no possibility of changing the use.

Someone with an axe to grind and no grounding in economics wrote that article.

[maat55]

I do not understand how they define disposable income - standard definition goes "The amount of income left to an individual after taxes have been paid, available for spending and saving." I did not see any income left for saving and very little of that was available for spending unless you define spending as money whose use is predetermined with no possibility of changing the use.

Someone with an axe to grind and no grounding in economics wrote that article.

It is difficult to find disposable income after the government takes 15.3% for SS/Medicare. SS started as a 2%(1% employee,1% employer) insurance and has grown to 12.4%.

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths

[cicy33]

It is difficult to find disposable income after the government takes 15.3% for SS/Medicare. SS started as a 2%(1% employee,1% employer) insurance and has grown to 12.4%.

The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%.

Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths

and there is no recouping any of that money. at least with the federal if you pay in too much you get some back. with the ss and medicare you get nothing back.