Posted on 05/18/2025 5:12:42 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Down in the swamps of Washington, D.C., our Congress is said to be hard at work hammering out a budget for the coming fiscal year. With a crisis of massive deficits looming, supposedly they are going to come up with some major areas where government spending can be cut.
One of the areas under consideration for significant cuts is the program formally known as the “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program,” or SNAP, and informally known as “food stamps.” According to the latest data from the Department of Agriculture, as of February 2025 the SNAP program had some 42+ million “participation persons,” with the cost of the program running at just under $8 billion per month, which is close to $100 billion per year.
Is it possible to achieve meaningful savings in this program? That depends on whether you think that the government’s goal should be to maximize the number of people living on handouts and in a state of dependency, or whether instead you think that the government’s goal should be to maximize the number of people living by their own resources and without dependency. The history of the program over the past several decades would suggest that plenty of current program participants are fully capable of making it on their own.
However, needless to say, the left-wing press has risen to the occasion to defend every last penny of current spending on the ground that any cut would constitute a cruel blow to the vulnerable. For one example among many that are available, let me pick on my usual whipping boy, the New York Times. The Times has a piece from Monday (May 12) with the headline and subheadline “Republicans Target Federal Anti-Hunger Program as They Prepare Trump Tax Package; Limiting funding for SNAP could help defray the costs of President Trump’s tax plans, but could result in millions of low-income families losing access to aid.” Excerpt:
House Republicans on Monday proposed a series of sharp restrictions on the federal anti-hunger program known as food stamps, seeking to limit its funding and benefits as part of a sprawling package to advance President Trump’s tax cuts. . . . The moves could result in potentially millions of low-income families losing access to the safety net program.
On cue, the Times rolls out a program advocate to throw around some inflammatory rhetoric:
Proponents of the food stamp program say that it has long served as a critical lifeline for low-income families by ensuring that they do not experience hunger. . . . “Slashing billions from SNAP would deepen hunger, increase poverty, and weaken communities,” said Crystal FitzSimons, interim president of the Food Research & Action Center, an advocacy group.
However, looking at the history of the program, what emerges is that it became bloated during the Covid pandemic, and the Bidenauts were only to happy to keep it that way. The best resource I find for a counter-view on food stamps is something called the Economic Policy Innovation Center, or EPIC. They have a web page called the EPIC Food Stamps Resource, updated to May 1, 2025. Some key data:
- In 2001, when Bill Clinton left office, the number of participants in the food stamp program was 17.3 million.
- During the George W. Bush years, food stamp enrollment went up substantially, reaching 28 million in 2008.
- But then, once Barack Obama took office, enrollment really started to soar. As recounted in this Manhattan Contrarian post from 2013, the Obama administration undertook an aggressive advertising and outreach effort to maximize food stamp enrollment. By 2013, enrollment had reached 47.24 million. Essentially all of that increase took place during times of economic expansion, when the normal expectation would be that enrollment would decline.
- During his first term, Trump and his people made substantial progress in decreasing the food stamp rolls. By Trump’s last year in office, enrollment was down to just over 34 million, almost a 30% decrease.
Covid was the excuse for letting the food stamp rolls begin to explode again. But at this point the pandemic has been over for at least three years. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that the rolls are at a high level because the Biden people wanted them to be at a high level.
EPIC gives some insights into how the numbers come to be so high. For example, the food stamp program supposedly has work requirements for any able-bodied adults. But the work requirements “are currently waived completely or in part in 34 states.” As a result, many able-bodied adults enrolled in the program simply do not work. EPIC gives figures for 2017-19: “Before the pandemic and Biden expansions, 13 million able-bodied adults received food stamp benefits on average between 2017 and 2019, yet 62 percent of these work-capable recipients did not work at all.” Since then, the evasion of the supposed work requirements has only gotten worse.
With food stamp program expenditures currently running at an annual rate of around $100 billion or more, there is lots of room for that to be reduced without anyone actually going hungry. If Bill Clinton could have food stamp rolls of well under 20 million people, that should be achievable again.
Claim? It is right there online under each state’s SNAP site. A family of 4 in NC can earn up to $5,200/mo to be eligible for SNAP. A family of 4 in TX can earn up to $4,125. And they get free phones, free internet, discounts on utilities, etc. Yes, that is shown in black and white on the sites. Being on SNAP gets them eligible for income limited food banks that don’t allow that high of income from the regular working joe.
We’ve never seen that high of working income but we can pay our way on food, phone, internet and full utilities. Remember, SNAP is 70% of what those delusional fat cats in D.C. think is what it takes to feed kids. How about those 360 free breakfast and lunch school meals during the school year and the weekend boxes and the summer lunches that SNAP doesn’t count. So taxpayers end up paying double. That double doesn’t consider all the food banks and other charities.
The local welfare secretary crunched the numbers and promptly quit when she saw the clients were getting waaay more than she was working 40/hr. I’m not saying it should be totally eliminated but slashed and burned and slashed again isn’t going to hurt. There is a reason they have been selling their food stamps for 50 cents on the dollar for decades. If we can eat well on $3.75/day/person, then why are they getting THREE TIMES more just on SNAP alone?
The grocery store where I worked in HS had the policy that bag boys would take your groceries to your car and load them if you wished. The food stamp people would almost always have you take their groceries to their car and load them. I loaded groceries that were paid for with food stamps into new model Cadillacs many times every day. I had a thing I did when bagging groceries for an obese woman with no manners where I would predict foodstamps/Cadillac. I was usually right. Some I remembered because of their filthy “new” cars. The floor in the back seats would be full of McDonalds bags and all the french fries holders and hamburger wrappers. I don’t know how they could tolerate the horrible smell.
The max income for a senior to be eligible for SNAP in AZ is $2,321/month after their deductions such as a house, medical expense, blah, blah are calculated. That is much more than your post of $800. They would receive $23 in SNAP and get the extra freebies like phone, internet, deductions on utilities, etc. Your numbers are off.
I am not, and did not call you a leftist. And I certainly didn’t characterize you as a non-conservative.
First off, there isn’t across the board universal approval of elimination of assistance or welfare at all levels. There are people who may espouse that, but they aren’t the majority.
Most of us approve of at least some form of support for people who are down in luck or indigent for some reason.
That is not this discussion here. Even the author of the article did not advocate wholesale removal of assistance or support of those types of people.
If we can be characterized as conservatives as having taken a one size fits all approach, it has been with things that inhibit freedom.
If there are issues with assistance to people who actually need it, or disability benefits to people who are actually disabled, two aspects of our federal welfare state that are completely and totally abused and fraudulent at all levels on a great scale, I don’t see people support the elimination of it as much as I see people supporting, fixing the problem and getting help to those who need it, and absolutely taking away from people who do not need those things.
I challenge you to present an example of an extremist, one-size-fits-all piece of legislation that has been proposed or approved by conservatives at any level that increases the general freedom of Americans.
Even abortion is not one of those.
As far as I am concerned, the one-size-fits-all approach is a wholly Leftist approach, which they express as for “the common good” whether it is or isn’t. Usually, it’s “their”, common good.
And even if we do have one-size-fits-all approaches to various issues, it is issues like school choice that allow people to make their own decisions.
2nd Amendment issues Fall into that category.
Ok, let’s do the real world math then on your assumption that $4k is too high a cap for eligibility.
Income family of four, Tx. +$4,000.
Average rent on a 3 bedroom. -$1,900.
Utilities, power, water, trash. -$0,400.
Average Health insurance a month for four. -$1,500.
Car payment on one car even though two are now
needed to maintain two menial jobs with kids.
$742 for new $525 used. Assume one is paid off. -$0,525.
Auto insurance for two, liability only. -$0,058.
School age clothes for two. (minimum) -$0,150.
https://www.apartments.com/rent-market-trends/tx/
https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/health/average-cost-of-health-insurance/
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/average-monthly-car-payment
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/average-cost-of-car-insurance/
https://www.kiddiebliss.com/how-much-do-kids-clothes-cost/
See the problem here? The economy and costs are the true problem here... Even with both parents working and spending the bare minimum to survive it is almost impossible to get by on just a working income alone without help.
The grocery store where I worked in HS had the policy that bag boys would take your groceries to your car and load them if you wished.
I worked at Publix for the summer as a bag boy, and it was forbidden for bag boy to accept tips. They even had managers standing on the roof to make sure nobody took a tip.
I didn’t even add childcare costs to that for kids under school age...
-$0,600
https://www.care.com/c/how-much-does-child-care-cost/
That is where I worked too - Publix.
“The max income for a senior to be eligible for SNAP in AZ is $2,321/month after their deductions such as a house, medical expense, blah, blah are calculated.”
And in what world do you live in where a senior actually makes that much on social security? Many widows are only receiving $600 dollars a month. Most recipients the max is only $1.200 a month. It costs more to rent a studio apartment before any other costs...
You must be stuck in the 60s-70s economy mind... We are not in Kansas anymore my friend...
And, by the way-this discourse is not meant as adversarial-I have been reading your posts long enough to have your measure, and I respect your point of view on these things.
I disagree with the overall characterization you made. I don’t believe it is accurate or fair.
And I respect you also friend. But I am not going to lie to myself and cover for others when I observe a general common consensus that I know to be immoral and hypocritical. I am not pointing at you directly at all. But there is indeed some common consensus and radical extremism among conservatives. And I am going to to call it like it is.
All Blacks are automatically guilty without need for due process, All non white foreigners need to go whether they are here “legally” or not, the whole middle east and all Muslims need to be exterminated, Etc. And I know others besides myself see it too but they are afraid to say anything because they do not want to rock the boat or get stoned and burnt at that same stake of extremism.
And with this particular subject there is a majority of conservatives who think welfare and assistance should be completely eliminated altogether. This is extremism. It is all in the archives. They have never even been hungry in their lives and so they have absolutely no clue what it is like. They care only about themselves personally and completely forget what compassion is.
Ironically there is a high number of folks on this board right here who are good Christian Conservatives who do not make enough on SS to survive and have no choice but to get assistance from the government in order to survive. But they will not speak up because they fear the overall general hate for the concept here.
I have talked with dozens of folks in this same position of hardship over the years here. When I stand up for them on this topic they PM me on the side and thank me for the compassion to try and defuse the radical extremism.
Yes, there is radical extremism that intimidates and suppresses open opinion and dialog... And a general turning of heads from and cover up of peer hypocrisy by very example. It is the opposite of what good compassionate Christian Conservatives claim to be...
Having an “R” does not make immoral in-compassionate unrighteousness righteous... Not even my own...
I don’t want to discuss other issues, I want to stick to this issue in its context.
There is no majority of people here who support the total eradication of some form of support, even if the vast majority take FULL issue with the endemic corruption and bloat of the current support systems.
I have been here far longer than you have (unless you are a “re-tread”) and have engaged fully in this forum with over 107,000 posts in real time and with the subject at hand, and I DO recognize that there are extremists in all the areas you mention, but reject your assertion that those extremist views are in any way the majority or anywhere even close to it.
You may have looked at targeted posts in the archives, but I have read them day by day for the past 20 years, and have met dozens of our fellow Freepers in person without taking a hiatus for months or years, so I think I have my finger adequately on the pulse of this website.
You are painting unfairly with a broad brush. Yeah. We have vile, racist, hard-hearted, selfish people on this forum.
Go out there in real life outside the Internet, and you will find them everywhere across the human and political spectrum. It is human nature and you have to see it and understand it.
But you don’t have to be ruled by it.
Run a poll...
It would be as scientific as any poll run by any Leftist organization with an agenda.
People who are hot about it and want it something done now would answer in disproportionate numbers, which is why this country is supposed to be run by the rule of law under Constitutional guidelines and not by polls.
You and I are going to continue to disagree on this.
Where did you come up with that I said Social Security? I said income. That could be walking the neighbor’s dog plus SS. At that income, the SNAP benefits would be $23 plus the extra freebies. Getting only $60 or whatever from SNAP would mean there is more income than just the SS. Take it up with the SNAP office. Their phone number is on their site or chat with Shaun.
“You and I are going to continue to disagree on this.”
Except I am not disagreeing with you. From the start I agreed some problems need to be addressed to make it functional again and yet still not alienate those who truly need it. As I mentioned, my only worry is that true to pattern that they do not go completely overboard with slash and burn that does create hardships for those who truly need it. And based on factual historical pattern they will and they will be cheered for doing it.
Just my opinion but I believe if they get all the illegals off of food cards it would be a major savings. If they also stop allowing junk food and drinks that would be another major savings.
That needs to change. If federal money is used basic rules should be the same across the country. If a state wants their own rules then the state needs to do it without federal money.
“That needs to change. If federal money is used basic rules should be the same across the country. If a state wants their own rules then the state needs to do it without federal money.”
I absolutely agree. Blue states should not be able to fudge and change the rules to fit their politics. And they are...
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.