Skip to comments.SNAP reform an urgent need
Posted on 05/13/2012 6:22:31 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Last month, House Republicans unveiled a plan to cut the federal budget by $261 billion over the next decade. One of the cornerstones of the proposal is a substantial cut to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly referred to as the food-stamp program. Democrats have resorted to their usual demagoguery in the face of spending-cut proposals by the GOP. "We're literally going to take it out of the mouths of babes. It's outrageous," said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.
Around the same time, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) weighed in on the future of SNAP, which is administered by the federal Department of Agriculture, with benefits distributed by the states. It concluded that without some fixing, the program will continue to be expensive and will undermine the work ethic, a fundamental tenet of American society. The CBO suggested some common-sense improvements that are worthy of support.
According to the CBO's report, in fiscal year 2011, the federal government spent a record $78 billion on SNAP, and nearly 45 million people received benefits each month. It also noted that even though the economy is expected to rebound by fiscal year 2022, at that time, about 34 million people still will be receiving SNAP benefits each month; this is projected to cost $73 billion, which will be one of "the highest (expenditures) on all non-health-related federal support programs for low-income households."
The part I don't get is how any of this is the government's (Tax payers) responsibility.
As a Christian, I believe that it is my responsibility to help the poor and needy but no way do I believe that the government should force people to pay for someone elses needs.
Plus if they didn't force me to pay for this, I'd have more money to spend on personal, case by case basis charity, with me making decisions about who gets my help.
Our church gets calls almost every day from people seeking money and/or food. They want money for rent, car payments, utility bills etc etc. We long ago reached the point where we ask them if they ever attend our church, if the answer is no, we simply tell them that we can't help them, that we must help our own first and we have reached the limit of our resources. This may sound hard hearted and we get some pretty ugly replies because of it but it's a practical matter and the bottom line is we don't have enough to help everybody.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Any program that allows you to buy canned chili but prohibits you from buying toilet paper is fatally flawed.
The only food “aid” that should be available is 3 MRE’s a day.
We undoubtedly have the most obese poor people in the world.
A visit to the “bad side of town” in summer when folks aren’t wearing winter garb will confirm this.
get yourself a 44oz Slurpee and a King-sized Snickers and put it on your Foodstamp card so you can save your cash for those $6/pk smokes
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.
I'm sorry, but in this day and computer age, I'mm calling Bovine Excrement on that last part.
Cutting $261 billion in ten years.
$26 billion per year.
Out of a budget that's $1000 to $1500 billion per year in the hole.
Color me unimpressed.
There are no cuts in that budget proposal, that is simply a reduction of the planned growth.
Think like a Democrat ... 26 billion is a lot of Food Stamp President voters!
MRE’s aren’t cheap enough
In the FWIW Hyperbole department...
That REALLY is a great deal of money, so let me try and REALLY REALLY impress you, as you are currently unimpressed.
How about $1 TRILLION !!! in 40 years!
Or, cutting the budget by $2.6 !!! TRILLION !!! in 100 years!!!
(of course, over the 100 year period, the “today’s dollars” deficit is $150 trillion - Zimbabwe dollars here we come!)
9 out of 10 black women I see buying groceries at my local market, WalMart, Target - ANYWHERE - are using a SNAP or EBT card. These fat hoes usually have expensive jewelry, shoes and cell phones as well. It is disgusting.
Thing about stigma—tended to shame some of the sorry into straightening out their useless lives...
...not any more.
After Hurricane Katrina destroyed my business in Mississippi, I moved to Texas to look for work. I was told by the county social services people that because I was white, I wouldn’t be getting food stamps. I found a job, as a supervisor at the Texas Workforce Center, supervising workers and signing off on free laptops, gas cards, bus passes, child care and Wal-Mart & Target gift cards for the New Orleans Katrina victims who were ... you guessed it...
It seems that half the people we now see in the local markets are obviously Hispanic, can’t speak english, but have full grocery carts and EBT cards.
And they don’t even have the courtesy to give the rest of us in line so much as a “Muchas Gracias!”
..............the federal government spent a record $78 billion on SNAP, and nearly 45 million people received benefits .......................
So, that breaks down to $1733 per person, or about $4.75 per person per day of food benefits, ($78B/$45M).
Now, the kids that go to school get a free breakfast and a free lunch, so dinnertime for them is not life/death nutrition, (so they might be able to skip dinner wilst ripping copper out of the next door project before sundown.)
So a family of three (two kids plus mother, -—father is a long gone history lesson-—) get $14.25 per day for free food, $100 per week.
I believe that the allowance is a very generous benefit, along with their rent subsidies, free cell phone, energy assistance, tax credits for the poor, possible welfare, free medicaid, and on and on.
We just need to add taxes for everybody else to allow these folks to continue to reproduce! s\
EXACTLY RIGHT! and...needed repeating!
“We undoubtedly have the most obese poor people in the world.”
EVIDENCE OF SNAP FACT #1:
SNAP is a subsidy for food sales.
The money goes to producers. The ‘poor’ are just a political excuse.
The average recipient could get by on 3/4 of their benefit without any effort.
But that would give the producers 1/4 less.
So donations pour in to “compassionate” politicians, poor people get fat, and media sells ads for Coke and Pepsi, Oreos and Vienna Fingers.
Politicians giving money to their ad buyers: that’s the media’s idea of “compassion”...
We’re staring at national bankruptcy because of runaway charitable programs that are (now) politically untouchable.
Cutting back or canceling even ONE of these programs would result in howling from coast to coast, and quite possibly massive rioting.
Ever think Obummer might DELIBERATELY cut off some or even all of these programs, just to “light the fuse” on social unrest? Just wondering ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.