46 Million People On Food stamps

[rpmGator]

Of course this had nothing to do with tax breaks that sent jobs elsewhere, or going into two wars and spending billions on firehouses in Iraq. Or policy to give tax breaks during an increase in spending due to war, or the fact that homes could no longer be afforded or wages are so far behind inflation that there aren't enough hours in the day to make enough at such low wages.

The top down thing has created more and more poor while the top just gets richer. Yet all you can do is slam those who go hungry. Which is as many as 1 in 6 people today.

Of course all the hungry have an MBA and are just sitting on their asses. It isn't like the economy got killed and those are the results.

[wgbgator]

You know what would elimate the need for means tested programs like SNAP? An indexed living wage, or a universal basic guaranteed income. But my guess is those would be even more offensive to today's conservatives, and it would also take away some prime message board anecdotes about people with EBT cards having iPhones or comparing food stamps to feeding animals.

[surfn1080]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

You know what would elimate the need for means tested programs like SNAP? An indexed living wage, or a universal basic guaranteed income. But my guess is those would be even more offensive to today's conservatives, and it would also take away some prime message board anecdotes about people with EBT cards having iPhones or comparing food stamps to feeding animals.

So you fight spending with spending? Maybe i don't totally understand your point.

[David Shepherd]

I have no problem with helping to feed those who are hungry because they are poor. I do have a problem with feeding those who use their income on wants (computer, internet, cable, TV, smartphones etc) and not their basic needs.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by surfn1080

So you fight spending with spending? Maybe i don't totally understand your point.

My only point is that means tested poverty programs would barely be needed if either a) work earned you an indexed living wage or b) everyone received a basic guaranteed income tied to a cost of living index. With a) you'd probably still need assistance programs for people unable to work, with b) you don't. I think b) is better policy, and one edorsed by decidedly non-socialists like Hayek. In any case, the point should be clear: the best way to reduce poverty we've come up with so far is to give people with little money more money (means tested wealth transfers targeted to things like childcare and food, like the EITC or Food Stamps), or to make sure everyone has a guaranteed amount of money or a universal benefit (what some might call an "entitlement").

[diehardgator1]

i was in a 7-11 the other day and the person ahead of me paid for beer cigarettes and scratch off tickets with a food stamp debit card

[wgbgator]

Another useful foodstamp anecdote. Thanks for sharing!

[diehardgator1]

disability benefits are worse tan food stamps

"More than 1.6 million Americans have signed up for Social Security disability benefits since the recession, taking themselves out of the work force -- and maybe making the unemployment rate look better than it should.

That's the message of a Bloomberg report on Thursday, which notes that the ranks of workers collecting disability benefits have swollen to 8.7 million in April from 7.1 million in December 2007, when the recession officially began.

Some of those workers are using disability benefits to replace expired unemployment benefits, the Bloomberg story suggests. That means they're officially out of the "labor force," which means they don't get counted when the government calculates unemployment. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1474621.html

[wgbgator]

SSDI is really hard to get. Its hard to think there are many receiving those benefits that are actually viable workers. Also probably a reason why they were among the first to be unemployed, and the least likely to find more work once they were.

[MichiGator2002]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

SSDI is really hard to get. Its hard to think there are many receiving those benefits that are actually viable workers. Also probably a reason why they were among the first to be unemployed, and the least likely to find more work once they were.

Again, the rolls have doubled in four years for SSDI. It makes a joke out of the idea that all those are legitimately disabled from working. Again, did the American media just miss an unending cycle of terrible workplace conditions? OSHA coming apart at the seams? No. What is happening is that SSDI applications are not being scrutinized to nearly the extent they should be, because it is being used as a backstop for unemployment where it isn't available either because it ran out or wasn't eligible.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by anstro76

what do you do with someone with disabilities and lives alone

Sent from my mind using ESP

In reality it is not the "federal" governments issue. But for the outlier case have a doctor sign off on a waiver...

This is not complicated...

[channingcrowderhungry]

Originally Posted by QGator2414

In reality it is not the "federal" governments issue. But for the outlier case have a doctor sign off on a waiver...

This is not complicated...

Speaking of not complicated, if we are going to provide EBT cards to 46 million people AT LEAST restrict it to healthy food. This is so logical the government would never do it. Idiots.

[QGator2414]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Again, the rolls have doubled in four years for SSDI. It makes a joke out of the idea that all those are legitimately disabled from working. Again, did the American media just miss an unending cycle of terrible workplace conditions? OSHA coming apart at the seams? No. What is happening is that SSDI applications are not being scrutinized to nearly the extent they should be, because it is being used as a backstop for unemployment where it isn't available either because it ran out or wasn't eligible.

This!

We pay a lot of money for a disability policy and on top of that have an own occupation rider. So while work may not be able to performed the current occupation one could still work in other capacities. Many just refuse to find work that could while they may be limited in their options due to a disability...

[gator421]

Originally Posted by diehardgator1

i was in a 7-11 the other day and the person ahead of me paid for beer cigarettes and scratch off tickets with a food stamp debit card

Did they win anything?

[gator421]

[quote=wgbgator;6454852]SSDI is really hard to get. Its hard to think there are many receiving those benefits that are actually viable workers. Also probably a reason why they were among the first to be unemployed, and the least likely to find more work once they were.[/QUOTE

It took my brother who is legitimately disabled almost two years to get benefits.

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Again, the rolls have doubled in four years for SSDI. It makes a joke out of the idea that all those are legitimately disabled from working. Again, did the American media just miss an unending cycle of terrible workplace conditions? OSHA coming apart at the seams? No. What is happening is that SSDI applications are not being scrutinized to nearly the extent they should be, because it is being used as a backstop for unemployment where it isn't available either because it ran out or wasn't eligible.

Is it shocking that more people file valid claims with social insurance programs too when there is less recourse to earn other income or be supported by another family member in down economy? Were these people that would be in the workforce long term otherwise? I highly doubt it. Basically, their departure was hastened.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

SSDI is really hard to get. Its hard to think there are many receiving those benefits that are actually viable workers. Also probably a reason why they were among the first to be unemployed, and the least likely to find more work once they were.

I don't know. I watching a documentary about the White family of West Virginia. Fairly infamous, wild bunch. Most of them had been on disability all their lives. Supported themselves between that and selling pills.

[gator421]

Originally Posted by rivergator

I don't know. I watching a documentary about the White family of West Virginia. Fairly infamous, wild bunch. Most of them had been on disability all their lives. Supported themselves between that and selling pills.

The Dancing Outlaw?

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

SSDI is really hard to get. Its hard to think there are many receiving those benefits that are actually viable workers. Also probably a reason why they were among the first to be unemployed, and the least likely to find more work once they were.

Those standards have been reduced some years ago. This should be obvious with the amount of people that went from unemployment to SSDI.
Also:

Roughly 117,000 Americans double-dipped by cashing unemployment and Social Security disability checks during the height of the jobs crisis, costing taxpayers a combined $856 million in fiscal 2010 according to a government watchdog agency. The additional strain on the system will make the SSDI trust fund insolvent in four short years. With most eyes fixed on the election battle between President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, it was easy to miss the alarming report by the Government Accountability Office that was initially released this summer.
Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...gpCRPZvSrXq.99

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...its.aspx#page1

[wgbgator]

Originally Posted by gatorman_07732

Those standards have been reduced some years ago. This should be obvious with the amount of people that went from unemployment to SSDI.
Also:



http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articl...its.aspx#page1

That doesnt mention anything about reduction in standards that I can see. Moreover, if people meet the statutory qualifications for unemployment and SSDI, where's the problem? Given that unemployment insurance eventually terminates after a certain # of weeks anyways, its a self-correcting problem at worse. The other thing is that states administer unemployment and the federal gov't oversees SSDI. If the Fed did both you'd see less "double dipping."