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.

Lew

On 2/12/2015 5:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew




I wonder how it will affect breweries.

Big headed towards bigger government will keep everyone happy...farmers and food consumers alike. To hedge growth bets, check out the USDA expenditures 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 Mountain area ( maybe the EPA has a very similar program?),preserving the sage 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 slowing government growth.

Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew
---------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

I wonder how it will affect breweries.
----------------------------------------------------
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.

Lew

On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

On 2/12/2015 8:03 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew
---------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

I wonder how it will affect breweries.
----------------------------------------------------
It will have zero impact on beer sales since they are excluded
from food stamp purchases ...

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.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:17:29 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

And the EBT makes it easier to buy beer and smokes. Around here it is
easy to get your $100 in groceries paid for by an EBT holder for about
$50 cash.

Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 8:03 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew
---------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

I wonder how it will affect breweries.
----------------------------------------------------
It will have zero impact on beer sales since they are excluded
from food stamp purchases ...

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.

Exactly, and if this is not apparent, your government has you thinking the
way they want.

On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)

On 2/13/2015 4:06 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:17:29 -0700, Just Wondering
wrote:

On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

And the EBT makes it easier to buy beer and smokes. Around here it is
easy to get your $100 in groceries paid for by an EBT holder for about
$50 cash.


Pshaw! If I had just read a little further....

Considering the fact that a large percentage of the "food stamp" funds go for things other than food, The changes will have about zero impact on the farmers. However, folks will have to find other ways to pay for the tobacco products and beer.

Deb

On 02/12/2015 04:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew


Might put a dent in the tourism industry:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/dgreenfield/welfare-recipients-take-ebt-to-disney-world-and-vegas/


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 6:10:04 PM UTC-5, Lew Hodgett wrote:
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.

Lew

If I am not mistaken (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am) all of this recent talk about changes to the Food Stamp program are related to changes that were put into place as part of the Farm Bill of 2014.

Congress included changes to the Food Stamp program in the Feb 2014 Farm Bill which cut benefits to certain individuals based on how much those individuals received in "heating cost" assistance from their state.

Individuals used to be able to qualify for additional food stamps if they received as little as $1 in heating cost assistance, so the state gave them the $1. (Heat and Eat). The 2014 Farm Bill increased the minimum requirement to $20.

Some states promptly raised the amount that they provided in heating assistance by $19, putting their constituents back on the "additional Food Stamp" rolls. Some are calling this an "end-around" to the Farm Bill's cost savings attempt.

The extra $19 comes from the federal government anyway, so it doesn't cost the states anything, and it keeps their constituents happy.

The renewed activity is related to certain members of congress trying to prevent the states from performing the "end around" that eliminates the savings the Farm Bill provision was supposed provide.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-stamp-cuts-2/

Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)

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.

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...
-------------------------------------------------
"Just Wondering" wrote:


That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people
still consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving
assistance get electronic debit cards.)
-----------------------------------------------------
That assumes you have the money to pay for the food.

Lew

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)

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.

What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".

Stolen without permission from:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud

"In FY 2012, over 100 analysts and investigators reviewed over 15,000 stores and conducted nearly 4,500 undercover investigations. Close to 1,400 stores 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 actions at the local level. USDA's Office of the Inspector General also conducts extensive criminal investigations - many resulting from FNS administrative oversight findings and referrals - to prosecute traffickers. In FY 2012, OIG SNAP investigations resulted in 342 convictions, including a number of 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 percent of its investigative resources to prevent SNAP fraud, waste and abuse."

Scott Lurndal wrote:


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.

Anecdotally - it seems to me that the abuse is more common in urban areas
than it is in rural areas. Personal ethics and all that, I suppose. I can
tell you that I've been behind people on assistance who were buying better
cuts of meat, and what I would call discretionary food items, than what I
was buying on my own dime. Can't really say I've seen a lot of beer in
those carts.

--

-Mike-

DerbyDad03 writes:
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people sti=
ll
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use=
=20
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)
=20
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?
=20
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.

What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".

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.



Stolen without permission from:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud

"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.=
"

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 4:07:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
DerbyDad03 writes:
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people sti=
ll
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use=
=20
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)
=20
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?
=20
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.

What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".

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.


So, are you saying that the FNS should stop investigating and prosecuting and supplying benefits to the states for sting operations? Should they not try 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 escalate well beyond the 4% level of 2 decades ago.

What percentage of abuse would you consider significant?





Stolen without permission from:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fraud/what-snap-fraud

"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.=
"

On 2/13/2015 12:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)

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.


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.

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:06:50 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:


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.

Anecdotally - it seems to me that the abuse is more common in urban areas
than it is in rural areas. Personal ethics and all that, I suppose. I can
tell you that I've been behind people on assistance who were buying better
cuts of meat, and what I would call discretionary food items, than what I
was buying on my own dime. Can't really say I've seen a lot of beer in
those carts.

Just saw a sign in the supermarket "Sushi is EBT eligible".

"DerbyDad03" wrote:

What percentage of abuse would you consider significant?
-------------------------------------
Whatever percentage you choose, it will be more than 1%.

Lew

On 2/13/2015 3:39 PM, Max wrote:
On 2/13/2015 12:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people
still
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)

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.


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.

On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

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.


You been reading my mail...

On 2/14/2015 12:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
Max wrote in news:54dec4d0$0$1242$c3e8da3$460562f1
@news.astraweb.com:

On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

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.

You been reading my mail...

Children made up 45 percent of people receiving food stamps, according to
the most recent annual report issued by the USDA in November 2012. An
additional 9 percent were over age 60.

Children don't receive food stamps (EBT cards), it's their parents who
receive them, and unless those parents are truly disabled they can work
for their kids' supper. I'm over 60 myself, I don't see a problem with
people working at least until age 65.

On 2/14/2015 5:37 AM, Just Wondering wrote:


Children don't receive food stamps (EBT cards), it's their parents who
receive them, and unless those parents are truly disabled they can work
for their kids' supper. I'm over 60 myself, I don't see a problem with
people working at least until age 65.


Still working at 69, I agree with you. I also know at least 6
twenty-somethings sucking up my tax dollars in the form of an EBT card

On 02/14/2015 12:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
Max wrote in news:54dec4d0$0$1242$c3e8da3$460562f1
@news.astraweb.com:

On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

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.


You been reading my mail...

Children made up 45 percent of people receiving food stamps, according to
the most recent annual report issued by the USDA in November 2012. An
additional 9 percent were over age 60.

-----------
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement
Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677


Including Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements" greatly skews
the data that is the subject of this thread.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 2/14/2015 8:25 AM, Doug Winterburn wrote:
On 02/14/2015 12:14 AM, Baxter wrote:
Max wrote in news:54dec4d0$0$1242$c3e8da3$460562f1
@news.astraweb.com:

On 2/13/2015 5:54 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

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.


You been reading my mail...

Children made up 45 percent of people receiving food stamps, according to
the most recent annual report issued by the USDA in November 2012. An
additional 9 percent were over age 60.

-----------
Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of
Entitlement
Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677


Including Social Security and Medicare as "entitlements" greatly skews
the data that is the subject of this thread.


Personally I do not considered Social Security Insurance an entitlement
program. (At least that is the way it was sold to the American people
until the democrats siphoned it off to eliminate poverty. Just for the
record Poverty is a higher percentage of the population today than it
was when they started "fighting it")

For over 50 years the government has been taking a large percent of my
income ON THE PROMISE they would provide income for my retirement

If that money had been modestly invested in the stock market which on
the average has been growing at a rate of 10% per year, I would be a
multi millionaire to day. The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

Scott Lurndal wrote:
DerbyDad03 writes:
On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 2:35:01 PM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Max writes:
On 2/13/2015 3:17 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 2/12/2015 4:10 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

Since food stamps directly impact overall food consumption
by creating more food customers, ...

That doesn't even make sense. With or without food stamps, people sti=
ll
consume food.
(BTW, there are no food stamps any more. People receiving assistance
get electronic debit cards.)

Which they use to buy groceries to sell at a discount for cash and use=
=20
the cash to buy beer. Ain't capitalism wonderful! ;-)
=20
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?
=20
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.

What is your definition of "significant on any scale that matters".

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.




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
too.

On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . .
SS does guarantee some income for the masses. Without it, we'd have a
lot of poor older people too old to work with NO savings or investment
at all. Our politicians have *******ized it over the years making it a
give-away program for a lot of people, not just the retired.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . .
SS does guarantee some income for the masses. Without it, we'd have a
lot of poor older people too old to work with NO savings or investment
at all. Our politicians have *******ized it over the years making it
a give-away program for a lot of people, not just the retired.

No kidding. It still p's me off that my brother retired on SSDI and his two
boys got 7 or 8 years of SSI until they got out of high school - or turned
21 - I can't remember. Kids have not earned that benefit, and I just don't
buy into that program.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:05:29 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2015 5:37 AM, Just Wondering wrote:


Children don't receive food stamps (EBT cards), it's their parents who
receive them, and unless those parents are truly disabled they can work
for their kids' supper. I'm over 60 myself, I don't see a problem with
people working at least until age 65.


Still working at 69, I agree with you. I also know at least 6
twenty-somethings sucking up my tax dollars in the form of an EBT card

Ditto (62). I plan on working for at least another four, if not eight
years (I'll decide when the bridge crosses).

Just be glad those six aren't living in your basement, and off your
medical insurance.

On Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:07:15 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my
opinion was a very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . .
SS does guarantee some income for the masses. Without it, we'd have a
lot of poor older people too old to work with NO savings or investment
at all. Our politicians have *******ized it over the years making it a
give-away program for a lot of people, not just the retired.

Then, there is Chile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensions_in_Chile

The problem with the above is that the fed would just use it as
another slush fund and political tool.

On 2/14/15 9:26 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my opinion was a very
poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . . SS does guarantee some income for the masses.
Without it, we'd have a lot of poor older people too old to work
with NO savings or investment at all. Our politicians have
*******ized it over the years making it a give-away program for a
lot of people, not just the retired.

No kidding. It still p's me off that my brother retired on SSDI and
his two boys got 7 or 8 years of SSI until they got out of high
school - or turned 21 - I can't remember. Kids have not earned that
benefit, and I just don't buy into that program.


Why shouldn't your family get the benefits that you paid into from your
hard earned income?

In my mind Social Security is the only "entitlement" that IS entitled.
You're entitled to it because you paid into it. Just like unemployment.
You pay into it from every paycheck, so if you get laid off it's there
for you.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/14/2015 11:42 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 2/14/15 9:26 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my opinion was a very
poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . . SS does guarantee some income for the masses.
Without it, we'd have a lot of poor older people too old to work
with NO savings or investment at all. Our politicians have
*******ized it over the years making it a give-away program for a
lot of people, not just the retired.

No kidding. It still p's me off that my brother retired on SSDI and
his two boys got 7 or 8 years of SSI until they got out of high
school - or turned 21 - I can't remember. Kids have not earned that
benefit, and I just don't buy into that program.


Why shouldn't your family get the benefits that you paid into from your
hard earned income?

In my mind Social Security is the only "entitlement" that IS entitled.
You're entitled to it because you paid into it. Just like unemployment.
You pay into it from every paycheck, so if you get laid off it's there
for you.

+1


John

-MIKE- wrote:
On 2/14/15 9:26 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my opinion was a very
poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . . SS does guarantee some income for the masses.
Without it, we'd have a lot of poor older people too old to work
with NO savings or investment at all. Our politicians have
*******ized it over the years making it a give-away program for a
lot of people, not just the retired.

No kidding. It still p's me off that my brother retired on SSDI and
his two boys got 7 or 8 years of SSI until they got out of high
school - or turned 21 - I can't remember. Kids have not earned that
benefit, and I just don't buy into that program.


Why shouldn't your family get the benefits that you paid into from
your hard earned income?

In my mind Social Security is the only "entitlement" that IS entitled.
You're entitled to it because you paid into it. Just like
unemployment. You pay into it from every paycheck, so if you get
laid off it's there for you.

In my mind the employee is entitled to his or her fair share. I see no
reason why high school kids are deserving of that money just because the
parent is no longer working. Why should those kids receive $600 or $700 per
month? My brother got his full share immediately upon his retirement, so
why give more to the kids?

--

-Mike-

On 2/14/15 1:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
On 2/14/15 9:26 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/14/2015 8:46 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 2/14/2015 7:40 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:

The Social Security Insurance program in my opinion was a
very poor investment.

A Ponzi scheme, by any definition of the term.


Very true, but. . . SS does guarantee some income for the
masses. Without it, we'd have a lot of poor older people too
old to work with NO savings or investment at all. Our
politicians have *******ized it over the years making it a
give-away program for a lot of people, not just the retired.

No kidding. It still p's me off that my brother retired on SSDI
and his two boys got 7 or 8 years of SSI until they got out of
high school - or turned 21 - I can't remember. Kids have not
earned that benefit, and I just don't buy into that program.


Why shouldn't your family get the benefits that you paid into from
your hard earned income?

In my mind Social Security is the only "entitlement" that IS
entitled. You're entitled to it because you paid into it. Just
like unemployment. You pay into it from every paycheck, so if you
get laid off it's there for you.

In my mind the employee is entitled to his or her fair share. I see
no reason why high school kids are deserving of that money just
because the parent is no longer working. Why should those kids
receive $600 or $700 per month? My brother got his full share
immediately upon his retirement, so why give more to the kids?


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind a
4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for himself.
My brother paid into Social Security his entire working life. Why
shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old enough to provide
for himself?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 2/14/2015 4:00 PM, -MIKE- wrote:


In my brother's case, he was killed in a car accident and left behind a
4 years old son.
Suddenly, he can't provide for his child what he normally would've for
the next 14 years until that child is old enough to provide for himself.
My brother paid into Social Security his entire working life. Why
shouldn't it go to his family, his son, until he's old enough to provide
for himself?



That was not the intention of SS. They sell insurance that will provide
for the family. Younger people can get term insurance cheap if they are
concerned about the family.

Like any program, the more you want to provide, the more we have to pay
in. Chances are, his family collected more than he put into the system

On 2/14/2015 3:43 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:

I wonder how it will affect breweries.

I wonder how it will affect hungry people.

Probably not so much