American dependency on food stamps

[gwb-trading]

Quote from futurecurrents:

very good but you forgot this part...




........" Once you account for the fact that some of these program dollars go to the working poor, you end up with CBPP's estimate of 10 percent, or about 5 percent of the whole federal budget."


So 5% of the budget is going toward feeding people who don't work.

Now, these people who don't work. Why don't they?

And what could be worse than feeding people?! The horror!! What would Jesus think?

We could get a bunch of missiles with that money.

If you can not define the percentage of these programs that go to the working poor then you need to assume that all the funds go to the non-working poor. Bottom line whether it is 5% or 6% does not really matter - these are all non-disabled, working age adults without children that refuse to work.

Personally, I will support programs for schools lunches, and children's medical insurance even when the poor parent is not working. I do not oppose providing short term assistance for families, but situations where adults are deliberately gaming the system needs to stop. According to the figures from the federal government - a minimum of 20% of public benefits (SNAP, TANF, Section 8, etc.) are provided fraudulently each year and the taxpayers should not pay for this.

 

[futurecurrents]

Quote from gwb-trading:

If you can not define the percentage of these programs that go to the working poor then you need to assume that all the funds go to the non-working poor. Bottom line whether it is 5% or 6% does not really matter - these are all non-disabled, working age adults without children that refuse to work.

Personally, I will support programs for schools lunches, and children's medical insurance even when the poor parent is not working. I do not oppose providing short term assistance for families, but situations where adults are deliberately gaming the system needs to stop. According to the figures from the federal government - a minimum of 20% of public benefits (SNAP, TANF, Section 8, etc.) are provided fraudulently each year and the taxpayers should not pay for this.

I agree that gaming the system has got to stop. However, in the mind of the righty this often translates into simply cutting these programs. That hurts the majority of participants that really need it.

Here's a graphic to help us get an idea about this..

"Most SNAP participants are either not expected to work or are working. In a typical month of 2011, 68 percent of SNAP recipients were not expected to work because they were children, elderly, disabled, or were caring for a disabled family member in their home or for a child under 6 where another household member was working. Children under the age of 18 constitute nearly half (45 percent) of all SNAP participants."



So...19% of food stamp receivers are presumably able to work but don't.

So 19% of 6% is about 1.2%.

So 1.2% of the federal budget goes to people that could presumably work but don't, in the form of medicaid and food stamps.

 

[gwb-trading]

I don't disagree with the the information you posted below. I believe that for taxpayers to trust the benefits systems there is a need to actively drive out the fraud and abuse. There also is a need to employable adults without under school age children to be working in order to receive benefits. If they are not working in a paid job then there are plenty of volunteer opportunities available including picking up trash.

While there are many people in the conservative ranks who scream for ending all benefit programs - I disagree. The intent of these programs were to be short-term help to get people back on their feet so in the long-term they can be contributing members of society. From a big picture perspective this is a worthwhile public effort in my opinion - we just need to get the abusers off the programs via active policing and consistent oversight.

Quote from futurecurrents:

I agree that gaming the system has got to stop. However, in the mind of the righty this often translates into simply cutting these programs. That hurts the majority of participants that really need it.

Here's a graphic to help us get an idea about this..

"Most SNAP participants are either not expected to work or are working. In a typical month of 2011, 68 percent of SNAP recipients were not expected to work because they were children, elderly, disabled, or were caring for a disabled family member in their home or for a child under 6 where another household member was working. Children under the age of 18 constitute nearly half (45 percent) of all SNAP participants."



So...19% of food stamp receivers are presumably able to work but don't.

So 19% of 6% is about 1.2%.

So 1.2% of the federal budget goes to people that could presumably work but don't, in the form of medicaid and food stamps.

 

[Tsing Tao]

gwb,

I'd also add that a complete overhaul of the program should be done to revamp what can, and cannot be purchased under the SNAP program. Those purchases should be monitored by computers, and when an infraction kicks out, that SNAP recipient needs to be penalized. Stores like 7-11 or purchases like Lobster tail, Coke, whatever...this needs to be eliminated.

You might say "Well, Tsing, I thought you were for less government involvement. Isn't this government telling SNAP recipients what to buy?" And it is. But when someone takes money from the government to supplement a financial need, then the government has a right to tell them how they can spend it.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

...But when someone takes money from the government to supplement a financial need, then the government has a right to tell them how they can spend it.

Did you mean takes money from taxpayers then taxpayers have a right to tell them how they can spend it?

 

[Ricter]

Identifying and cutting waste in any organization costs money. At a certain level of waste your control program ROI is breakeven.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Lucrum:

Did you mean takes money from taxpayers then taxpayers have a right to tell them how they can spend it?

In a perfect world, yes. But that's not what happens in the real world. If the system were functioning correctly, the government would have SNAP under control and it would be an uncomfortable benefit that people relied on and couldn't wait to get off of. You would have to use the old bulky stamps in the grocery store - the embarrassing ones that made you feel bad. You wouldn't be able to buy anything but food staples. If you wanted Lobster, you would have to get a job. Etc.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Identifying and cutting waste in any organization costs money. At a certain level of waste your control program ROI is breakeven.

Only on a temporary basis. Once you establish controls, your startup cost is recovered by continued savings.

Also, I would point out that your comment applies the government is operating at acceptable efficiency. We both know there's no way in hell this is true.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

In a perfect world, yes. But that's not what happens in the real world. If the system were functioning correctly, the government would have SNAP under control and it would be an uncomfortable benefit that people relied on and couldn't wait to get off of. You would have to use the old bulky stamps in the grocery store - the embarrassing ones that made you feel bad. You wouldn't be able to buy anything but food staples. If you wanted Lobster, you would have to get a job. Etc.

Agreed
Of course our flaming liberals have a vested interest in keeping people on welfare.
Hence there complete lack of interest in reform.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Only on a temporary basis. Once you establish controls, your startup cost is recovered by continued savings.

Also, I would point out that your comment applies the government is operating at acceptable efficiency. We both know there's no way in hell this is true.

I don't know that it's true or not, I don't run any government department.