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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".
Stolen without permission from:
"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.
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.
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
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
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
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.
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.
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.