People on food stamps

[Sue7M3]

I think shutting it down is a valid option. I mean if we pay for housing and medical attention....what else is there? You mean there are people out there that NEED help with food too? IF your elderly, what did you do with your life that you ended up with nothing?

Well let me answer that by telling you about my grandparents. My grandfather made a good living working for the public transportation system in Boston. He retired in 1972, and in 1973 they bought a small house in the suburbs and moved there to be closer to their grandchildren. They lived comfortably on his pension and their social security. Unfortunately just 4 years later my grandfather was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer when he went into the hospital for what was supposed to be a gallbladder operation. 3 days later, while still in the hospital, he had a heart attack and died. He was just 69. When he died, his pension ended as well as his social security. My grandmother was left with just her small social security check (she worked as a waitress all her life and never made much) as income. She lost the house and had to move in with us. That's how an elderly person can end up with nothing.

Yes, some people can't even afford to buy food. It's expensive these days. Obviously you've been fortunate enough not to have experienced unemployment. My husband was laid off in 2009 from the company he worked at for nearly 20 years. He made $23 an hour plus OT. Know what he got for unemployment? $250 a week. That's $1k a month. Our rent alone is $800 a month. The economy SUCKS and he still hasn't been able to find a full time job. He's been working temp jobs and any odd jobs he can find. He even cleans houses. Fortunately I own my own business and make a decent income so we have been okay. There are many others in our situation who aren't near so lucky.

BTW, the waiting list for government housing is HUGE and as far as Section 8 vouchers, people who have them face a lot of discrimination as many landlords won't accept them. Our public insurance system is terribly broken. Many people who need Medicaid are denied. It's not easy to get help, period.

You can't judge someone on food stamps or any other government assistance unless you've walked in their shoes. Hopefully none of us ever will.

 

[330D]

How is it not a choice? You CHOSE not to get any other skills other than ones you now have. And, you CHOOSE not to change employers/careers.

For me it is NOT a choice. I have three kids who rely on me to feed, clothe and shelter them. It isn't so easy to just switch to a different career for me. And I could not afford to stop doing what I do to go back to school.

Most, if not all employers in my field require pre-employment and random testing. I also enjoy what I do, and don't really care to do something else. IT IS THE PRICE I PAY TO DO WHAT I DO. As it should be a requirement for any federal, state, county or town program designed to help the down and out. What is your argument for not testing? It is ok for folks to buy drugs and use them while being financially supported by taxpayers? How is that fair? They are ILLEGAL! And there are plenty of people who live on government checks, as their families have done for multiple generations who don't CHOOSE to go look for a job because there is no incentive for them to do so. Welfare has become a way of life for them. Why is that ok? Why do you tell me, a hard working, self sustaining, employable, tax paying, productive member of society to go look for a different (probably lower paying) job so I don't have to be tested for ILLEGAL substances? That is an invalid argument as far as I am concerned.

I understand the need for welfare programs for the destitute. I am not opposed to them. There are plenty of good people who fall on hard times and can't support their families. Such is life. But as our country falls nearer and nearer to a financial precipice in which we may not be able to recover, I can't see how it is fair to support drug addicts with hard earned taxpayer dollars without the recipients being held accountable for their actions.

They CHOSE to become addicted. I CHOOSE to think they should be tested for illegal substances.

 

[Frisco]

I think shutting it down is a valid option.

IF you're elderly, what did you do with your life that you ended up with nothing?

There is a naive cruelty in that question that is almost unbelievable.

To put it simply, there are perfectly honorable, hard working folk who spend their lives building the things we live and work in, growing the food we eat, fixing the things we break, etc, who could never afford insurance or much of a savings account. They spend decades living from paycheck to paycheck, and then they reach a point when they can no longer work.

I can't believe such a thing has to be said in all this.

 

[nlsme]

For me it is NOT a choice. I have three kids who rely on me to feed, clothe and shelter them. It isn't so easy to just switch to a different career for me. And I could not afford to stop doing what I do to go back to school.

Most, if not all employers in my field require pre-employment and random testing. I also enjoy what I do, and don't really care to do something else. IT IS THE PRICE I PAY TO DO WHAT I DO. As it should be a requirement for any federal, state, county or town program designed to help the down and out. What is your argument for not testing? It is ok for folks to buy drugs and use them while being financially supported by taxpayers? How is that fair? They are ILLEGAL! And there are plenty of people who live on government checks, as their families have done for multiple generations who don't CHOOSE to go look for a job because there is no incentive for them to do so. Welfare has become a way of life for them. Why is that ok? Why do you tell me, a hard working, self sustaining, employable, tax paying, productive member of society to go look for a different (probably lower paying) job so I don't have to be tested for ILLEGAL substances? That is an invalid argument as far as I am concerned.

I understand the need for welfare programs for the destitute. I am not opposed to them. There are plenty of good people who fall on hard times and can't support their families. Such is life. But as our country falls nearer and nearer to a financial precipice in which we may not be able to recover, I can't see how it is fair to support drug addicts with hard earned taxpayer dollars without the recipients being held accountable for their actions.

They CHOSE to become addicted. I CHOOSE to think they should be tested for illegal substances.

I never said it was an EASY choice. I said it was a choice. One you have not been WILLING to make. NOBODY is forcing you to take a drug test. I am willing to bet, there are thousands of jobs that pay more than yours, that don't require a drug test. You want to force it upon someone who doesn't have a choice. To solve what exactly? To TRY to stop the small percentage of people who abuse the system.. You do realize, there are ways around a drug test? I take it you want drug tests at the door of your local food pantry? What about alcohol? Is it okay for the millions of people that drink while on foodstamps? I just think it is pointless. There isn't a win for ANYBODY requiring EVERYONE to take drug tests when they are on hard times.

 

[tommy_ed]

You mean there are people out there that NEED help with food too?

yes.

Ok, if your handicapped that I could understand. IF your elderly, what did you do with your life that you ended up with nothing?

if people are either working and not making enough money to buy food or unable to work, they shouldn't starve. Especially if the working folks are already contributing as well.

maybe we can put a time limit on how long you get food stamps?

probably 95% of these people arent going to be fine next week. it isnt a short term solution for many

c) maybe we can have people pick up trash on the side of the road to earn their food?

what about handicapped people, or people who are already working a full time job?

I'm not totally against it. I think that if it were to go away people would most likely do fine, but throwing around money is insane and this is reflected by the rampant abuse.

the government already spends our tax money on the most ridiculous things you can think of, and it sounds like a lot of us might not even receive any of the social security we've been paying into for years. Why not get what we can get out of our money if we need it?

 

[electric monk]

There is a naive cruelty in that question that is almost unbelievable.

To put it simply, there are perfectly honorable, hard working folk who spend their lives building the things we live and work in, growing the food we eat, fixing the things we break, etc, who could never afford insurance or much of a savings account. They spend decades living from paycheck to paycheck, and then they reach a point when they can no longer work.

I can't believe such a thing has to be said in all this.

+1

 

[330D]

You want to force it upon someone who doesn't have a choice. To solve what exactly? To TRY to stop the small percentage of people who abuse the system.. You do realize, there are ways around a drug test? I take it you want drug tests at the door of your local food pantry? What about alcohol? Is it okay for the millions of people that drink while on foodstamps? I just think it is pointless. There isn't a win for ANYBODY requiring EVERYONE to take drug tests when they are on hard times.

To solve what? To put some money back into a broke and failing system. You make no valid point other than it "isn't a win" and is "pointless." You can't fake a hair follicle drug test. Peeing in a cup, yes easy. I have in fact. So don't think that you are talking to someone here who is not at odds with this subject. I live on both sides of it. But that is not the point. We hand out money to these folks. They should be held to a standard in order to receive said money. It is not a high standard. It is passing a test for ILLEGAL drugs.

Alcohol is legal. That makes it a different issue.

 

[nlsme]

So, you want to spend money requiring EVERYONE to take the test in order to recoup money from the abusers. You must think everyone who gets food stamps uses drugs. Considering there are millions upon millions of people receiving aid, the tests alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So, ZWHen the small percentage of people who fail the test get denied, you save half of what you spent on the tests. Makes sense to me. NOT.

 

[ElasticNinja]

what's wrong with shutting down the food stamps system? The government can reduce the poorer expenses (housing, healthcare and education), as well as bumping up payments as a replacement. Lots of countries with strong welfare stamps don't have food states and nobody starves

 

[noah way]

what's wrong with shutting down the food stamps system?

Because 42 million people depend on them?

In U.S., 14% Rely on Food Stamps (Nov. 2010)

Some 42,389,619 Americans received food stamps in August, a 17% rise from the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which tracks the data. That number is up 58.5% from August 2007, before the recession began.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Because 42 million people depend on them? ...

"Most able-bodied people between the ages of 18 and 60 must register for work to qualify for food stamps. Many people may be required to participate in an employment or training program. Some college students also may be eligible."


Food Stamp Facts
​

 

[ElasticNinja]

Because 42 million people depend on them?

In U.S., 14% Rely on Food Stamps (Nov. 2010)

Some 42,389,619 Americans received food stamps in August, a 17% rise from the same time a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which tracks the data. That number is up 58.5% from August 2007, before the recession began.

I said what's wrong with replacing them basically >_>

 

[330D]

So, you want to spend money requiring EVERYONE to take the test in order to recoup money from the abusers. You must think everyone who gets food stamps uses drugs. Considering there are millions upon millions of people receiving aid, the tests alone would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. So, ZWHen the small percentage of people who fail the test get denied, you save half of what you spent on the tests. Makes sense to me. NOT.

Fair enough. The initial outlay of money would be expensive. How much per year would we save when those ineligible for assistance because of drug problems were denied benefits? I bet it would be much more than what it costs to test per person... And I bet it would be a larger percentage than you would imagine who would fail.


Listen, I'm not trying to say that we should deny assistance to those in need. That is the duty of a civilized society. Help should be available for those who need it and don't abuse it. But you cannot tell me that there is not enough abuse of the system (not only with drugs) that it needs a massive revamp. It simply does not work fairly. I just believe in this situation, if they don't want to help themselves, why should taxpayers be forced to help them?

 

[OutofDate1980]

I said what's wrong with replacing them basically >_>

IBM is working on it.

IBM Reveals Chip That Acts Like Human Brain

IBM Reveals Chip That Acts Like Human Brain -- InformationWeekIBM Reveals Chip That Acts Like Human Brain - hardware Blog

 

[Vihzel]

I believe the system needs reform to help prevent against more fraud. I'm not sure how to mend the system but I'm sure there could be things done at least. I know some families that really rely on the system so there is a definite need for it. They don't abuse the system and work very hard for my father.

 

[nlsme]

Fair enough. The initial outlay of money would be expensive. How much per year would we save when those ineligible for assistance because of drug problems were denied benefits? I bet it would be much more than what it costs to test per person... And I bet it would be a larger percentage than you would imagine who would fail.


Listen, I'm not trying to say that we should deny assistance to those in need. That is the duty of a civilized society. Help should be available for those who need it and don't abuse it. But you cannot tell me that there is not enough abuse of the system (not only with drugs) that it needs a massive revamp. It simply does not work fairly. I just believe in this situation, if they don't want to help themselves, why should taxpayers be forced to help them?

You want 42 million people to submit for drug tests, to get a million or so off the system. The tests would be in the hundreds of millions. Then what? The very next month, they come back clean, pee in a cup, receive benefits, then go back to using? Sorry, there is no money to be saved by this. I will be the first to agree that reform is needed. Just reform that will actually do something beneficial. The abuses are not by those that need it. Sorry, I don't see the point of telling a parent with children they don't qualify because their buddy smoked a joint with them three weeks earlier. And, as you are sending them on their way, to tell them not to mind the bum sitting outside the office with a fifth of jack in his hand.

 

[noah way]

Fraud:

According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999. ... A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant.

Cost:

About $220 million per day (less than a third of daily war spending). What's astounding is that in the wealthiest country in the world, the poverty rate is nearly 15%, and some 45 million people require food assistance.

Economic Effects:

Like other forms of government spending, SNAP, by putting money into people's hands, increases aggregate demand and stimulates the economy. In congressional testimony given in July 2008, Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Economy.com, provided estimates of the one-year fiscal multiplier effect for several fiscal policy options, and found that a temporary increase in SNAP was the most effective, with an estimated multiplier of 1.73.[31] In 2011, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack gave a slightly higher estimate: "Every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy in terms of economic activity."

 

[330D]

I am not googling for numbers. How do you know 1 million would be the number? and why every month? If they test positive, a year later they can reapply and start over. Lets not give them an easy out, make them be held accountable. I know a man who works for an agency that doles out welfare. He claims that if drug testing was mandatory the savings would pay for the initial outlay of funds in 2 years. That is significant. It is just word of mouth, but I believe him. He is a straight shooter. He likes his job and does the best he can for those in need.

I just don't understand why they should not be held accountable...

I have an idea. Make the recipients pay for their own tests. If they test positive, reimburse. If negative, sorry you're on your own. Come back in a year and reapply. (I know they don't have the money to pay for the tests if they are applying, but what else do we do?) Accountability needs to happen.
I am sure that there are companies that could make money doing drug tests while being efficient and cost effective for all parties involved.

Drug screens (urine) cost between $10 and $30. Hair is slightly more. That is not expensive.

This fat trimming needs to happen everywhere, not just with welfare, but it is a start.

 

[OutofDate1980]

... I have an idea. Make the recipients pay for their own tests. If they test positive, reimburse. If negative, sorry you're on your own. ...

"Welfare applicants in Florida will have to undergo drug testing under a bill signed by Gov. Rick Scott."

Fla. to require drug tests of welfare applicants - CBS News

Believe this ties in with http://androidforums.com/politics-c...elieve-marijuana-should-legal-discussion.html

 

[tommy_ed]

there is a HUGE problem with drug testing in order to receive food stamps:

what happens to the kids whose parents fail a drug test and lose food assistance?


EDIT: on a side note: probably a good 60% or more of the people who would fail, would probably do so with marijuana, which hurts no one. As mentioned earlier, these people either can't work, or do work full time and just don't make enough to pay the bills, don't throw out the age-old "lazy pothead" stereotype. I'm talking about a hard working citizen who maybe enjoys a joint after work once in a while, the way many enjoy a beer. Is it really worth it? Almost all of the hard drugs are out of your system in a much shorter time than marijuana when using urine tests, and hair tests costs upwards of 300-500 dollars for a RELIABLE one. Seems like a big waste of money to me

 

[lordofthereef]

This fat trimming needs to happen everywhere, not just with welfare, but it is a start.

The problem is that it always seems to start (and stop) largely with wellfare, education, and healthcare.

I don't have a problem with drug testing being required for wellfare/ food stamps on a moral level. If the governemt ends up paying for this monthly test, however, it seems to me it will be a large expense. I have no idea how large, but if we are advocating forcing this expense then perhaps the responsible thing is to know if we are going to save any money in the long run.

The other problem we run into is adolescents. Plenty of kids rely on food stamps for food. So momma is a crack addict. What happens to the kids if momma fails a drug test. Sure some of them may be selling their food stamps. Maybe others are performing other activities to get their fix. It's a touchy subject, really.

Also, if they test positive, being that this would be a government run/mandated test, do we start arresting people too? If so, we fall back to what happens to the kids.

 

[lordofthereef]

on a side note: probably a good 60% or more of the people who would fail, would probably do so with marijuana, which hurts no one.

You have a point. That said, if the government is handing out money I don't want people smoking MJ either. For that matter, no cigs or alcohol. If you can afford any of the above why am I paying for your meals?

 

[Frisco]

You have a point. That said, if the government is handing out money I don't want people smoking MJ either. For that matter, no cigs or alcohol. If you can afford any of the above why am I paying for your meals?

Pretty unrealistic to try to force that, although it would be great if they would all clean up, get healthy (and in less need of healthcare, etc).

Meanwhile, the system is messed up and in more than one way. We need clever people with no political agenda to tweak it, and in our society that is asking a lot these days.

But we don't toss the whole thing for a lot of reasons that come out much worse than things as they are now. People under pressure trying to survive become different people then when they are just trying to make ends meet; there's a big difference.

 

[lordofthereef]

Pretty unrealistic to try to force that, although it would be great if they would all clean up, get healthy (and in less need of healthcare, etc).

Meanwhile, the system is messed up and in more than one way. We need clever people with no political agenda to tweak it, and in our society that is asking a lot these days.

But we don't toss the whole thing for a lot of reasons that come out much worse than things as they are now. People under pressure trying to survive become different people then when they are just trying to make ends meet; there's a big difference.

I am aware it isn't realistic to force it. I am saying that I wouldn't be lax, personally, on a failed MJ test. MJ "hurts no one" except the tax payer who is giving you the spending money for your weed (talking about this specific case/scenario).

 

[Frisco]

I am aware it isn't realistic to force it. I am saying that I wouldn't be lax, personally, on a failed MJ test. MJ "hurts no one" except the tax payer who is giving you the spending money for your weed (talking about this specific case/scenario).

I agree. I can't even stand to see them purchase Spaghettios and candy bars when the stuff in the produce section would be better for them.

Again, tweaking the system on many fronts would be the ideal: 1. nutrition counseling, 2. drug and alcohol counseling and therapy, 3. birth control and prenatal counseling, 4. budget counseling, etc.

We try that on a one-on-one basis at one of the facilities where I do volunteer work.. but it falls on deaf ears about 8 out of 10 times (the women seem to listen and follow up more often than the men).