Trump aiming to cut food stamps and starve poor, mostly African Americans

originally posted by: jimmyx

combined income for both of us is 5,050,000 dollars, combined tax bill for both is 505,000, you would be paying close to 99% of our combined income taxes......and yet we both paid out 10% of our income
statistics can be used in a lot of "different" ways

How much should it cost to be an American? Seems the ones that get slammed pay big taxes and the ones who are of good mind and body but do little with their lives get a pass for paying nothing for the same benefits. I pay about 40k a year in fed taxes, that is a lot of money to me.

I would like a flat tax make life easier, cleaner.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
While I do not necessarily agree with this, Snap needs a serious audit.. so many people gaming the system so they can keep their benefits while driving a brand new escalade because their common law husband/wife makes really good money... but since they dont have the court house paper saying they are married they can stay on snap sucking up money that could be used to actually help people.

I agree there needs to be an audit of food stamps, but it's not the amount given that is where the problem is. At an income of $750/month for about a decade, all I qualified for as a single childless adult was $70/month after all the cutbacks happened. The program isn't giving out all that much anymore. Certainly, if you're affording an escalade it's not a significant amount of money. Though the penalties for fraud already exist, and are severe.

Right now I'm actually getting benefits and a nice wage due to the ticket to work program. So I really am seeing this from all sides, because I was on this help for nearly 2 decades, and I'm very close to having done the impossible and getting off of it.

Where the real reform needs to take place is in prosecuting stores that let people use SNAP money on non food goods. Even then though, that's rare. Yet, I still have an anecdote of it happening. I was at a gas station in the middle of nowhere and someone inside, infront of me in line bought about 6 20 oz sodas, then (and this is the problem part) started buying scratch off lottery tickets, paying with the SNAP card. It's possible it came out of a TANF account instead, but the store was ringing them up as various other items, so I'm pretty sure it was food stamp fraud.

That sort of stuff needs to be addressed, but cutting the amounts people live on isn't going to do that.

This is GREAT news, I hope this is only the beginning of welfare cuts. Hopefully MANY more to come!

'Bludging ' should not be a career option, even for blacks

(I'm not white so hold your autistic screeching please)

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Irishhaf
While I do not necessarily agree with this, Snap needs a serious audit.. so many people gaming the system so they can keep their benefits while driving a brand new escalade because their common law husband/wife makes really good money... but since they dont have the court house paper saying they are married they can stay on snap sucking up money that could be used to actually help people.

I agree there needs to be an audit of food stamps, but it's not the amount given that is where the problem is. At an income of $750/month for about a decade, all I qualified for as a single childless adult was $70/month after all the cutbacks happened. The program isn't giving out all that much anymore. Certainly, if you're affording an escalade it's not a significant amount of money. Though the penalties for fraud already exist, and are severe.

Right now I'm actually getting benefits and a nice wage due to the ticket to work program. So I really am seeing this from all sides, because I was on this help for nearly 2 decades, and I'm very close to having done the impossible and getting off of it.

Where the real reform needs to take place is in prosecuting stores that let people use SNAP money on non food goods. Even then though, that's rare. Yet, I still have an anecdote of it happening. I was at a gas station in the middle of nowhere and someone inside, infront of me in line bought about 6 20 oz sodas, then (and this is the problem part) started buying scratch off lottery tickets, paying with the SNAP card. It's possible it came out of a TANF account instead, but the store was ringing them up as various other items, so I'm pretty sure it was food stamp fraud.

That sort of stuff needs to be addressed, but cutting the amounts people live on isn't going to do that.

From what i understand the SNAP card receives whatever money a person is qualified for. Not multiple cards for the same individual. If its SNAP only then food is the ONLY thing its capable of being used for. There's gov blocks in place that prevent its use for other things encoded in the card number or magnetic strip.

If you have a cash account attached to the card as well then you have a choice as to which account you're using if i understand correctly.

SNAP has changed a lot and perhaps for most folks the amount isn't the problem. But there is some stupidity going on in terms of the budget and allocation of the funds.

A friend of mine who is single, on disability, and not working was given $30/mo for food. That's insane. You can't live on $30/mo. Her disability income covered rent, utilities, bus fare, and some household goods/hygeine products leaving nothing left towards food. She was relying on fs for her entire food budget.

Maybe that's just Nebraska but i have heard its federal as opposed to state only.

To me this signals a problem. Either too many people are getting benefits either legitimately or by scamming the system or the funds aren't being allocated properly and waste is happening. Perhaps everyone applying is getting put on the system when not everyone is fully qualified to be on it.

I'm not talking about a scam... i'm talking about those in charge of getting people put on the program not denying those who don't qualify.

Sort of like grandma coming to visit her 4 children and 16 grandchildren. Tommy might ask grandma for $50 and after saying yes, everyone has their hand out. Instead of saying no to the newcomers, she says yes to all until she gives the very last dime to the last hand held out.

The government can no more afford this than the grandma in my example.

The whole system is wrong. Its simply not sustainable and was never intended to be.

Those who are disabled, fine. But even the disabled can help themselves through sustainable methods of food assistance beyond mere money.

Everyone else should have the same opportunities towards self reliance and sustainability also but that's not the agenda.

Or at least not from what i can tell.

a reply to: ventian
You don't know what you are talking about and are generalizing Black people based off where you live. The most ancient race of people on the planet will be just fine regardless of what happens.

a reply to: RomeByFire

I've seen people on welfare drive escalades, here in Canada the natives near mineral rich areas receive alot of walfare monies, or ones that own nice casinos.

Im not being sarcastic but arent we always told that minorities on welfare is a myth ?

a reply to: allsee4eye


At some stage we will have to accept the fact that the politicians and bankers, haven't got much more of a clue than the rest of us. and when they have they have to follow orders not to upset the wrong people, which doesn't solve the problem. The retail has a big problem. If food stamps get cut, Walmart and all the other biggies will just go bust , because its only welfare subsidies which are keeping them going. We are at the stage where the consumer must have money to consume, they haven't so that's an end to it. The danger is the lack of basic trade skills, that just are not there to manage a fifties style economy. Its all so centralised its in danger of becoming extinct if a serious change in the norm was experienced.

a reply to: RomeByFire

I'm more concerned about federal mandates of hundreds of billions of dollars that arms, funds, and trains known exporters of terrorists (Saudi Arabia) than people on welfare selling drugs to drive around in new escalades (which is ridiculous).

All things in good time. It is time for people to pull their own weight. I understand what you are saying is something that should be looked into. We need to delve into the past Presidents that this has happened under. None the less, welfare abuse should also be looked into. All of it is a problem that adds up. Just be glad it is starting to happen now that Trump is President.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: RomeByFire

I'm more concerned about federal mandates of hundreds of billions of dollars that arms, funds, and trains known exporters of terrorists (Saudi Arabia) than people on welfare selling drugs to drive around in new escalades (which is ridiculous).

All things in good time. It is time for people to pull their own weight. I understand what you are saying is something that should be looked into. We need to delve into the past Presidents that this has happened under. None the less, welfare abuse should also be looked into. All of it is a problem that adds up. Just be glad it is starting to happen now that Trump is President.

I love what he said to the question "what keeps you up at night?"

Was his answer terrorists? *Insert minority group here* rights? Jobs? Healthcare? *Insert "rival" country name here*? Budget?

No... what was it? Wasteful spending!

I think this is the first time a sitting prez has ever looked into that particular aspect from a viewpoint of attempting to scale it back.

a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

I think this is the first time a sitting prez has ever looked into that particular aspect from a viewpoint of attempting to scale it back.

I wonder what took so long?

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: AkontaDarkpaw

I think this is the first time a sitting prez has ever looked into that particular aspect from a viewpoint of attempting to scale it back.

I wonder what took so long?

They had friends they owed money or favors to.

Trump is the first to get into the WH without donations allegedly. He owes no one.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AMPTAH

The reason the rich are supposed to pay more, is because the government is responsible for creating and maintaining the "environment" where the rich can make their money.

Something like the top 20% pays 84% of income taxes?

There's a minimum amount of income needed for basic survival. After that, it's all discretionary spending.

Simply determine and set a minimum income below which nobody pays taxes, and let the higher earners pay what is needed to keep the society going.

So, say, if you earn less than $250,000 USD per year, you pay no tax. Above that, you pay tax at a rate that sustains the system.

What we have today, is that "only the little people pay taxes", the rich use loopholes and offshore tax havens to pay no tax at all.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: Irishhaf
While I do not necessarily agree with this, Snap needs a serious audit.. so many people gaming the system so they can keep their benefits while driving a brand new escalade because their common law husband/wife makes really good money... but since they dont have the court house paper saying they are married they can stay on snap sucking up money that could be used to actually help people.

The federal reserve privatized banking institution and their non-legally bound obligation to fractional reserve banking and quantitative easing has done more damage to this nation - and its populace - than welfare queens, anchor babies, etc etc could ever hope to do themselves.

People on welfare drive brand new Escalades? What world do you live in?

The world near Philly, where I see this on a constant basis. You need to get out more and open your eyes. And it happen all over the world.

Unrepentant Escalade-driving surfer who lives like a king on food stamps tells how the welfare system has let him strike it rich with his band

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: AMPTAH

The reason the rich are supposed to pay more, is because the government is responsible for creating and maintaining the "environment" where the rich can make their money.

Something like the top 20% pays 84% of income taxes?

There's a minimum amount of income needed for basic survival. After that, it's all discretionary spending.

Simply determine and set a minimum income below which nobody pays taxes, and let the higher earners pay what is needed to keep the society going.

So, say, if you earn less than $250,000 USD per year, you pay no tax. Above that, you pay tax at a rate that sustains the system.

What we have today, is that "only the little people pay taxes", the rich use loopholes and offshore tax havens to pay no tax at all.

In truth... there's a COMPLETELY different financial mindset among the wealthy.

The poor (including myself) is anyone with a mindset contrary to the wealthy mindset. It doesn't actually matter what your networth is.

Those who are wealth minded think in terms of use vs cost.

So if you have a house that's worth $40k and you want to buy said house, you won't use your own money to purchase it and you won't go into debt for it either.

You find something of value to someone else and figure out a way to trade the item of value (which may have been given to you or you bought for a pittance and is virtually worthless in your opinion) so that you can use that other person's money to buy your house.

The poor man works for his money but the rich man's money works for him.

The poor man is a slave. The rich man is a master.

Taxes are paid by the poor because we're enslaved. The rich don't pay because they've mastered the art of using other people's money and their own to further their aims.

My example may be awful as I'm not wealth minded... but the mindset is still very different. Once you understand that you'll realize that a system where the poor don't pay taxes will never work.

a reply to: allsee4eye

You don't solve the SNAP problem by cutting money from it. You look at what IT is designed to solve - food insecurity and hunger in America - and you look at what drives that problem and aim to solve THAT so you no longer need as much money to support the smaller number of vulnerable people that still need help.

Just cutting it creates misery.

Of course, if you arrogantly assume that laziness is the only reason people are needing SNAP, then you can revel in justifiable anger while you take the cookie bag away from those 'greedy bad kids who don't want to roll up their GD sleeves...'

That is the MYTH of "welfare" that makes people angry - it is seen as unfair to those who pay taxes. I get it - that would make anyone angry!!

But WHAT IF that story about lazy people isn't true?

WHAT IF wages are so low that people holding down two jobs at 60 hours a week still aren't making enough money to feed themselves and their kids?

What If food insecurity isn't a sin but a result of massive income inequality? Who benefits from generating and promoting the myth that "entitlements" (such a misleading word) for economically disadvantaged people are really "handouts to lazy undeserving others?"

Stigma associated with the SNAP program has led to several common misconceptions about how the program works and who receives the benefits.

For instance, many Americans believe that the majority of SNAP benefits go towards people who could be working.

In fact, more than half of SNAP recipients are children or the elderly.

For the remaining working-age individuals, many of them are currently employed.

At least forty percent of all SNAP beneficiaries live in a household with earnings.

In fact, the majority of SNAP households do not receive cash welfare benefits (around 10% receive cash welfare), with increasing numbers of SNAP beneficiaries obtaining their primary source of income from employment.

So only 10% of SNAP beneficiaries are also recipients of the cash welfare program.

SNAP largely helps the elderly and children.

Here are the facts: SNAP FAQ Virtual Townhall

Now instead of cutting benefits, let's work it from the opposite end? What would need to happen for a single parent to be above the 130% of the poverty line threshold required for SNAP?
Federal Poverty Level 2017

The 2017 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2016 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2017.

$12,060 for individuals
$16,240 for a family of 2
$20,420 for a family of 3
$24,600 for a family of 4
$28,780 for a family of 5
$32,960 for a family of 6
$37,140 for a family of 7
$41,320 for a family of 8

So a single parent with two kids is at full poverty level at $20,420.
That family of three is eligible for SNAP at 130% of poverty or below

130% = $26,546 max income for family of three before losing SNAP

Our single mom would have to make $12.77 per hour 40 hours per week, which is well above minimum wage, to be slightly above the 130% threshold.

She would have to work over 70 hours per week at $7.25 (federal minimum) to meet the "over 130%" threshold. And she would have to pay for childcare barring helpful relatives or programs.


How do we help those on the lower rungs move up the ladder?

That is the question that needs to be solved. How do we eliminate poverty and mitigate the cost of living so that we don't need massive welfare/SNAP programs, but rather smaller ones for those most vulnerable - elderly, those with disabilities, those who fall on temporary hard times through extended illness or job loss, etc.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: allsee4eye

You don't solve the SNAP problem by cutting money from it. You look at what IT is designed to solve - food insecurity and hunger in America - and you look at what drives that problem and aim to solve THAT so you no longer need as much money to support the smaller number of vulnerable people that still need help.

Just cutting it creates misery.

Of course, if you arrogantly assume that laziness is the only reason people are needing SNAP, then you can revel in justifiable anger while you take the cookie bag away from those 'greedy bad kids who don't want to roll up their GD sleeves...'

That is the MYTH of "welfare" that makes people angry - it is seen as unfair to those who pay taxes. I get it - that would make anyone angry!!

But WHAT IF that story about lazy people isn't true?

WHAT IF wages are so low that people holding down two jobs at 60 hours a week still aren't making enough money to feed themselves and their kids?

What If food insecurity isn't a sin but a result of massive income inequality? Who benefits from generating and promoting the myth that "entitlements" (such a misleading word) for economically disadvantaged people are really "handouts to lazy undeserving others?"

Stigma associated with the SNAP program has led to several common misconceptions about how the program works and who receives the benefits.

For instance, many Americans believe that the majority of SNAP benefits go towards people who could be working.

In fact, more than half of SNAP recipients are children or the elderly.

For the remaining working-age individuals, many of them are currently employed.

At least forty percent of all SNAP beneficiaries live in a household with earnings.

In fact, the majority of SNAP households do not receive cash welfare benefits (around 10% receive cash welfare), with increasing numbers of SNAP beneficiaries obtaining their primary source of income from employment.

So only 10% of SNAP beneficiaries are also recipients of the cash welfare program.

SNAP largely helps the elderly and children.

Here are the facts: SNAP FAQ Virtual Townhall

Now instead of cutting benefits, let's work it from the opposite end? What would need to happen for a single parent to be above the 130% of the poverty line threshold required for SNAP?
Federal Poverty Level 2017

The 2017 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2016 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2017.

$12,060 for individuals
$16,240 for a family of 2
$20,420 for a family of 3
$24,600 for a family of 4
$28,780 for a family of 5
$32,960 for a family of 6
$37,140 for a family of 7
$41,320 for a family of 8

So a single parent with two kids is at full poverty level at $20,420.
That family of three is eligible for SNAP at 130% of poverty or below

130% = $26,546 max income for family of three before losing SNAP

Our single mom would have to make $12.77 per hour 40 hours per week, which is well above minimum wage, to be slightly above the 130% threshold.


How do we help those on the lower rungs move up the ladder?

That is the question that needs to be solved. How do we eliminate poverty and mitigate the cost of living so that we don't need massive welfare/SNAP programs, but rather smaller ones for those most vulnerable - elderly, those with disabilities, those who fall on temporary hard times through extended illness or job loss, etc.

That's an excellent question, one that i think can only be answered by a better economy.

Raising the minimum wage isn't going to fix it, nor is taxing the wealthy etc.

How many of the people that are on welfare programs like SNAP have no job skills or time to improve existing ones? How many benefits recipients have no formal education beyond hs?

Perhaps the answer to the problem lies in the type of work these recipients are capable of doing.

Just speaking from personal experience, even making 12.40/hr isn't enough for my husband and i. I am disabled but i receive no benefits yet, so we're surviving on his income alone.

Note the word here: SURVIVING.

In order for us to make ends meet he has to work OT and BEG for the OT he gets. This gives us a tad bit of breathing room though admittedly not much.

We're just slightly above qualified for benefits... how many recipients are in our position? Just on the cusp of receiving benefits?

Jobs don't pay well enough for the cost of living but raising the wages isn't the answer. The answer would be lowering the cost of living.

The cost of living is artificially raised so its not like those in the upper eschalons of society couldn't change it if they wanted to... they don't want to.

Creating a higher minimum wage would completely # small businesses and destroy entrepreneurial ventures unless you're either super wealthy or you had wealthy backers.

Its a screwed up system and the peons of society can't do anything until they stand together and STOP everything.

If literally no little people showed up to work, the upper escahlons would have to capitulate to the demands of the little people. Little people are all afraid of the big bad upper eschalon people so orders are obeyed and people continue eeking out an existence from the few scraps n crumbs that fall from the tables of the wealthy.

originally posted by: AboveBoard

How do we help those on the lower rungs move up the ladder?

That is the question that needs to be solved.

You can't. It's just the law of conservation of energy.

It takes energy to create wealth.

Everyone can't be rich, because the total energy of all the people is fixed.

The whole doctrine of slavery is that the masters consume the energy of the slaves to enhance their personal wealth.

If you make a slave into a master, whose energy will that slave consume to support his wealth?

The interesting question, in modern times, is whether we can use "Robots" to solve this problem.

Can we create an army of robots to do all the "slave work", so that we humans can "all be rich" ?

Or, will those robots figure out we humans are lazy, and revolt, and put us all back into slavery, once their own "Artificial Intelligence" figures out we've become useless.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: AboveBoard

How do we help those on the lower rungs move up the ladder?

That is the question that needs to be solved.

You can't. It's just the law of conservation of energy.

It takes energy to create wealth.

Everyone can't be rich, because the total energy of all the people is fixed.

The whole doctrine of slavery is that the masters consume the energy of the slaves to enhance their personal wealth.

If you make a slave into a master, whose energy will that slave consume to support his wealth?

The interesting question, in modern times, is whether we can use "Robots" to solve this problem.

Can we create an army of robots to do all the "slave work", so that we humans can "all be rich" ?

Or, will those robots figure out we humans are lazy, and revolt, and put us all back into slavery, once their own "Artificial Intelligence" figures out we've become useless.

Scary thought...

*Flash Bulletin*

TNG comes to mind with Commander Data. Ok so he worked with humans... but even so the exploration of that idea is an interesting one.

*Now back to your regularly scheduled topic*