RE: O/T: GOP Eyes Changes to Food-Stamp Program

Page 1 of 6  
The headline above caught my eye and made me wonder if it got the attention of USA farmers?
Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption by creating more food customers, which in turn has a direct impact on food production, which directly affects the farm economy, you have to wonder whether farmers will be happy with food stamp program changes by the GOP.
Wonder what percentage of farmers vote these days?
It will be interesting how this one plays out.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/2015 5:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

I wonder how it will affect breweries.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

--------------------------------------------------- "Leon" wrote:

---------------------------------------------------- It will have zero impact on beer sales since they are excluded from food stamp purchases; however, yeast sales to the bakeries will probably see an increase.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/2015 8:03 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

If you have $300 cash to spend on food and beer you can only buy so much beer. But if you have $300 and you then receive $200 in food stamps (actually, you'd get a debit card), then you could free up $200 cash that you would otherwise spend on food, and use the CASH to buy more beer. So, the mere fact that food stamps can't pay for food doesn't mean that food stamps have no impact on beer sales.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly, and if this is not apparent, your government has you thinking the way they want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

'Course that does mean that you had to get that $300 from somewhere else - which is generally from working. And those kids recieving SNAP can't buy beer even if they want to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Big headed towards bigger government will keep everyone happy...farmers and food consumers alike. To hedge growth bets, check out the USDA expenditure s at Mt Abram ski resort in Maine, broadband to rural areas (shouldn't the FCC be doing this?), safe drinking water for the residents of the Ozark M ountain area ( maybe the EPA has a very similar program?),preserving the sa ge grouse (perhaps the Department of Natural Resources is working on a like idea?), guaranteed mortgages for those in rural areas(thinking FANNIE MAE/ FREDDIE MAC do much the same). No, I don't think any farmers or SNAP folks will notice the slightest change despite any GOP proposals with regard to s lowing government growth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still consume food. (BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance get electronic debit cards.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:17:29 -0700, Just Wondering

And the EBT makes it easier to buy beer and smokes. Around here it is easy to get your $100 in groceries paid for by an EBT holder for about $50 cash.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2015 4:06 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Pshaw! If I had just read a little further....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just because it is possible, doesn't make it likely. Do you have any actual data that supports your supposition? Or is it more likely that the vast majority of folks receiving assistence actually need it and actually use it to buy food so they can spend what little cash they have on essentials like rent, transportation and toilet paper?
I've no doubt that there are people that abuse AFDC and other assistance programs. I doubt that the number of those people is significant on any scale that matters.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

ll


What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".
Stolen without permission from:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud
"In FY 2012, over 100 analysts and investigators reviewed over 15,000 store s and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 stor es were permanently disqualified for trafficking and nearly 700 stores were sanctioned for other violations such as the sale of ineligible items. FNS also works with State law enforcement authorities to provide them with SNAP benefits that are used in sting operations, supporting anti-trafficking ac tions at the local level. USDA's Office of the Inspector General also condu cts extensive criminal investigations - many resulting from FNS administrat ive oversight findings and referrals - to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2012 , OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a number o f multi-year prison terms for the most serious offenses, and approximately $57.7 million in monetary results. In FY 2012, OIG devoted more than 50 per cent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abuse. "
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

From your URL::
"The trafficking rate in SNAP has dropped dramatically. Due to increased oversight and improvements to program management by USDA, the trafficking rate has fallen significantly over the last two decades, from about 4 cents on the dollar in 1993 to about 1 cent in 2006-08 (most recent data available)."
That's 1%. That's not significant on any scale that matters.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:

sti> >ll

ce

e> >

y

So, are you saying that the FNS should stop investigating and prosecuting a nd supplying benefits to the states for sting operations? Should they not t ry to harvest the $57.7MM in monetary results?
One might assume that if they ceased their efforts the abuse would escalate back to the 1993 level of 4%. Of course, with the increased sophistication of the bad guys these days, one might easily assume that the abuse would e scalate well beyond the 4% level of 2 decades ago.
What percentage of abuse would you consider significant?

ore> >s and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 s tor> >es were permanently disqualified for trafficking and nearly 700 stores w ere> > sanctioned for other violations such as the sale of ineligible items. F NS > >also works with State law enforcement authorities to provide them with S NAP> > benefits that are used in sting operations, supporting anti-trafficking ac> >tions at the local level. USDA's Office of the Inspector General also co ndu> >cts extensive criminal investigations - many resulting from FNS administ rat> >ive oversight findings and referrals - to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2 012> >, OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a numbe r o> >f multi-year prison terms for the most serious offenses, and approximate ly > >$57.7 million in monetary results. In FY 2012, OIG devoted more than 50 per> >cent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abu se.> >"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"DerbyDad03" wrote:
What percentage of abuse would you consider significant? ------------------------------------- Whatever percentage you choose, it will be more than 1%.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You fail to consider that the fraud amount is down to 1% because of investigations and enforcement. Those two things are costly and add to the cost of fraud. And IMHO the cost of investigations and enforcement, because it is run by the government, is likely to be overly wasteful itself too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2015 12:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Well, whadyaknow; I've been mentioning my observations on several occasions and as well as I can recall that's the first "challenge". I'm in El Paso, Texas and as you very likely know El Paso is directly on the border. As such we have an inordinate number in individuals and families who qualify for assistance provided by those other individuals whose station in life allows them to help pay for the...uh...(I seem to be somewhat at a loss for an appropriate descriptive here), shall I say unfortunate, while also alleging that many of the so-called unfortunate are masters of their own misfortune. While I have sufficient compassion for my fellow man (woman and child), to give "without regret" to those who truly deserve compassion I reserve the right to resent the misuse of my...compassion. I married into a large Hispanic family and as a consequence I happen to have direct knowledge of welfare abuse. Doing a little quick mental math I can site at least a dozen cases. My experience tells me that at least 15-20% of welfare recipients in El Paso could very well manage without "public assistance". I'm not sure that a successful business could remain successful if they had 15 - 20% of "waste", considering "any scale that matters". With all due respect...Your Mileage May Vary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2015 3:39 PM, Max wrote:

> Require every EBT card recipient to show up for work -- some work, ANY work -- picking up litter, mowing lawns, painting fences, pulling weeds, digging holes and filling them back up, babysitting the kids of those who are out pulling weeds, supervising the litter pickers. Can't do physical labor? Sit in your wheelchair holding up a "People Working" sign by those who are moving rocks for their EBT cards. We can exempt the truly disabled. Want a $300 EBT card? Put in 40 hours of work first. Don't like it? Then get off your butt and find a real job.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

You been reading my mail...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.