Funny fact: when he checked into a motel for some scarlet letter action, he would claim his name was Ignatz Horowitz.
Cite? And if true, which aid for the poor program is most subject to fraud and waste / least efficient and effective? Maybe we can agree to eliminate that program and increase funding for SNAP. Would you join me in advocating for such an effort?
Oil industry subsidies seem like a good place to start. Of course, that is aid to people who are nowhere near to being poor, so it maybe doesn’t count.
If anyone is saying that they’re either misinformed or lying. That particular loophole doesn’t exist. If you have more than about 2,000-3,000 assets you do not qualify for food stamps whether you have an income or not. So a major lottery winner simply doesn’t qualify, period, and if such a person was getting food stamps they’re committing fraud.
If a person on SNAP does win the lottery big they are required to report that and withdraw from the program.
They probably are calling it SNAP fraud for a reason. I’d guess like every government program on earth there are administrative lag issues, most likely the government does not know right away that you’ve won the lottery. Sans action on your part, you’d continue to receive benefits for some time until they became aware that you had substantial assets.
This has been debunked so many times to almost not be worth responding to; I’m against subsidies in general, that beings said the reason we have oil industry subsidies is because both left and right love them. The idea that it’s some evil coalition of Republicans and Exxon executives is false.
Those subsidies exist because they appeal to both parties, and both parties supported them. Why? Of the roughly $4.5bn in oil subsidies in 2010, $1bn was for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve–something pretty much no one advocates we get rid of. Another $570m was the Low Income Home Energy Assitance Program which insures people in the Northeast where many homes are heated by fuel oil can keep the furnace running in winter-time, when lack of home heating can and has killed people. Another $1bn is in tax writeoffs for agricultural fuel use. All three of these popular programs account for more than half of the fuel subsidies annually and have wide bipartisan support. Liberals would never vote to end LIHEAP for example, almost no one would vote to end the SPR, and farm state legislators of both parties would never end the agricultural fuel subsidies. Much of the remainder of the fuel subsidies are common manufacturing tax credits that all manufacturers can take advantage of (and even non-manufacturing companies like software companies have been able to take advantage of them at times)–and Big Labor and President Obama love manufacturer tax credits.
Railing against big oil and fuel subsidies is political theater at its worst, and shows how both sides will take advantage of complex issues by boiling them down to simplistic misrepresentations.
95% of SNAP funding goes to benefits. 5% is anti-fraud. And yet, SNAP has an overpayment rate of only 2.2 percent (which includes not just fraud but any accidental overpayment or non-eligible payment) based on about 50,000 annual random investigations. Compare that to Medicare fee-for-service (8.5% erroneous payment rate) or Medicare Advantage Part C (11.4% erroneous payment rate).
There is some misuse on the other end, using SNAP benefit to buy prepared food or toilet paper or what-have-you. But those rates are also low, in part because if the store gets caught by the 50,000 audits, they get removed from the program, which means bankruptcy for many such stores. (And, in any event, that kind of misuse shouldn’t trouble you very much. Direct cash transfers are among the most effective anti-poverty mechanisms, since people know better than the government how to spend $50 to make their life better–a principle I’m pretty sure I’ve heard out of Republican lips more than once.)
Finally, there does not seem to be any evidence that SNAP benefits cause lower work participation. Most beneficiaries are children, the elderly, and the disabled. But among those who can work, the rate of work participation is *higher *after enrollment in the program.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/tag/facts-on-SNAP-series/
Of the major programs, my guess would be Medicare (which is of course not exclusively for the poor).
I would not join you in slashing Medicare, no. But then I’m not the one advocating slashing aid. I’m saying if you do decide to cut aid, in makes zero sense to start with food stamps.
And if you are expecting a growth in qualified participants because - oh, say, our population is increasing and we really haven’t fixed our unemployment issue around low skill jobs - or paid them a living wage - then you have the double whammy if you fund at the same levels - inflation plus more need.
(Note, I’m not in favor of most “living wage” proposals which seem to ignore economics - but if the only low skilled job you can find is part time at $7.50 an hour, and you are middle aged and raising a family that you started back before the factory in town shut down when you had a “good job for life” you might need some assistance).
They are Obama’s people, and he will be their god.
Not true. In many, many cases people are exempt from asset limits. Almost all of the recipients in my state are exempt but I don’t know whether it varies by state. But of course anyone who wins millions in the lottery would have to be a complete idiot to not be earning interest on their assets, which would count as income.
There are lots of ways to put the assets to work earning money that would not show up as income in the present.
Still, I’m sure few SNAP recipients have substantial assets anyway, so no biggie. They probably spend more money verifying assets than they do just disregarding assets.
However, offering proof and citation for bald-faced authoritative claims is not considered “assets”, if that’s whats holding you back.
While you can do those things to walk under the “income” limit, you would have the assets counted against you.
You don’t get to have $20,000 in equity in your house and get on SNAP. Or, at least, aren’t supposed to. I’m sure there are people who abuse SNAP, but I have an issue with punishing someone who has forgotten what food looks like just because some douche wants an extra $150 in food money each month.
Yes, you do, at least in some states. Example:
Most households no longer have an asset limit for the SNAP food stamp program. The asset test has been eliminated in most cases.
And even for the small number of people who do have the asset limit, if you look further in that document, the house does not count toward it.
Oh, great, just great! In order to save a few million in SNAP, we force more underwater mortgaged homes out on a depressed market. Fucking brilliant! With a bit of luck, and some time, they will be broke, hungry, and homeless! The banks will love that idea, nothing they like better than a brisk day of writing down assets!
In the famous words of the Sundance Kid: “You just keep thinking, Butch, that’s what you’re good at!”
I don’t think equity in your house is *ever *a countable asset (which is a good thing).
Cite please.
Well that’s new information to me. I’ll have to update. 
Here: