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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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....

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! ;-)

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.

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."

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.=
"

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-

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".

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 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.

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

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/