The number of people now on foodstamps now outnumbers those living in Northeast

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by PSGator66, Sep 18, 2013.

  1. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,452
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,867


    I'd tend to argue that the more generous the $ benefit (or just the more money you have basically), the less likely you are to choose McDonalds and Mountain Dew on a regular basis. Or make bad choices in general, regardless of your parenting acumen.
  2. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +324
    True, but SNAP's $133/month, we're not talking big dollars. The SNAP recipients are the ones most likely to feed their kids Mountain Dew and McDonalds.

    So, what's the argument against changing SNAP to be run similar to WIC, which restricts purchased to only "healthy" foods? Especially for SNAP recipients with kids?
  3. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    Yes, I care just as much as when the last guy was firing this figure into the stratosphere. You?

    Do the math in the "not silly" W years. What's allowable under your rules? 2001-2008? 17.3M to 28.2M. What percentage growth is that? YIKES! With smaller overall populations then too, of course.

    How long has this issue been front and center for you? Recent development?
  4. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,083
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +925
    Indeed, we must trust these people to make good decisions for their children. Obviously this isn't going to be a 100% accurate assumption, but I wonder if we should expect the rate of compliance to be any lower than that with non-SNAP participating families?
  5. Swampmaster
    Offline

    Swampmaster New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +51
    Convenience store owners just ring something else - the system is filled with fraud
  6. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,083
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +925
    Perhaps, but I've never witnessed this. What knowledge do we have regarding the percentage of SNAP participants which use their SNAP card for illegal purchases?
  7. fairfaxgator
    Offline

    fairfaxgator New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +7
    Would you say the same about DHS and the military?
  8. kygator
    Online

    kygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +243
    There probably is a correlation between bad choices and a lack of money. If there is a causation I think you have it backwards. The bad choices lead to a lack of money. Lack of money isn't leading to bad choices. Giving people who make bad choices more money isn't going to cause them to start making good choices.
  9. domgator
    Offline

    domgator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +77
    We keep hearing from Obama and the liberals on this board that the economy and job market are improving every month yet the number of people going on SNAP and other assistance is increasing every month. So either the Pres and his regime are intentionally handing out free stuff to buy votes and support perhaps, or they are lying about how great the economy and job market are doing.
  10. GatorRade
    Online

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,083
    Likes Received:
    271
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +925
    Or the population of the US is growing. Or we're getting new SNAP participants that used to be resigned to starving or black market jobs. Or other assistance includes social security and we're seeing a baby boomer retiring effect. Or probably many other reasons.
  11. gator85jd
    Offline

    gator85jd New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    5,893
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +65
    There's the problem -- this isn't going away and many on it will expect additional help AND sympathy. Not to mention free health care.
  12. wgbgator
    Online

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,452
    Likes Received:
    439
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,867
    There is quite a bit of research that disagrees with this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...nt-Financial-worries-reduce-IQ-13-points.html

    http://inplainsight.nbcnews.com/_ne...s-are-from-being-overwhelmed-study-finds?lite
    • Like Like x 1
  13. dadx4
    Online

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,941
    Likes Received:
    610
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Gainesville, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +1,830
    Liberals crack me up.
  14. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +324
    First, I cared back then. I didn't vote for GWB in either election.

    As for the math... Let's see there was a 63% increase in payments during GWBs eight years versus 69% increase during Obama's five years.

    But, all that is completely freakin' moot.

    Comparing GWB and Obama to figure out who more fiscally irresponsible with the national debt is akin to comparing Hitler and Stalin to figure out who was a worse mass murders. Ultimately, both GWB and Obama were irresponsible with this program.
  15. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +324
    Yes, absolutely. Both are ridiculously bloated bureaucracies.

    As a current member of the DoD, I can personally attest to the outrageous overspending the DoD does on a regular basis.

    If you never read Tom Coburn's "Back in the Black" Plan on deficit reduction where he details ways to reduce both the DoD and the DHS without affecting national security, you should. It's a great plan.
  16. Emmitto
    Offline

    Emmitto VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,767
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +737
    Well we can agree on that. What I'm getting at is the sudden come to Jesus moment by the right on this issue despite the fact that it started with that farm bill fiasco in the early 2000's.

    And then there were those radio ads aimed at Spanish speakers essentially recruiting them for food stamps. Again, a "previous" administration invention (probably more like the USDA, but if Obama gets blamed for micromanaging every government agency despite perpetual golfing then turnabout is fair play) although the current one continued it. I believe the ads have been terminated, but I'm not sure about that.

    So if that's not you, and you were loudly protesting the beginning of this food stamp explosion just as you are now, then my apologies. We can all get on board with "fewer food stamps." Let's (the generic us, not you and I) just not piss in each others ears and say it's raining when assigning blame.
  17. kygator
    Online

    kygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,822
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +243
    It isn't really surprising that people perform poorly on tests when they are under stress. I don't think that necessarily translates to people making better lifestyle or financial choices if you just give them more money.

    The study about farmers in India was more interesting but I'm not sure how much you can conclude from it. It wasn't broken up into a group that was given more money and one that was given less. It just had to do with the frequency of being paid. They found that farmers who got paid once a year didn't start pawning things or borrowing money until they ran out of money. Do you really need a study to understand the reason for that? That doesn't really lead me to believe that they were making wise decisions when they had their money.

    An example of people continuing to make bad decisions when getting larger amounts of unearned money would be poor people winning the lottery. The vast majority spend it all within 5 years.
  18. 108
    Online

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,198
    Likes Received:
    434
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,604
    These threads pop up once a week with the OP pointing to correlation without causation

    Lazy thinking
  19. domgator
    Offline

    domgator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,467
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +77
    LOL!! Of course it is population growth that is causing it!! So what happened all those times in the past when the population was growing and the number of people on food stamps stayed flat or decreased?
  20. GT Gator
    Offline

    GT Gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,675
    Likes Received:
    99
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +324
    There certainly are partisan reasons that people are finally opening their eyes to this massive issue.

    It also have a lot to do with the massive relative size of the program....

    In 2008, the total expenditures on SNAP was $35 Billion. In 2013, it supposed to hit $80 Billion -- a 128% increase.

    It's also now a sizable (2.4%) portion of the Federal Budget (compared to 1.2% when GWB was in office).

    But, I also think it has to do with some of the antics by some on the Left. In the face of a program that has more than doubled in five years, is the Left trying to reduce the program? Nope. Instead you have people like the CEO of Panera, who was well-discussed in the other thread, trying to "prove" to Americans that the current $133 per person monthly stipend is not enough. In other words, there's a clear push to try and increase spending on this ballooning program.

    So, what happened yesterday when the House Republicans tried to cut the program a mere $4 Billion (or just 5%) per year?

    The President has said that he would veto the bill if it ever got past the Senate (it won't). And those on the Left like Sen. Harry Reid declared the 5% cut to be "hateful, punitive legislation."

    When 5% cuts in a program that ballooned by 128% in just five years are declared "hateful" and "punitive," you can see why there is "the sudden come to Jesus moment by the right."

Share This Page