Food Stamps

Why did I always think "Old Tart" was a male?

Why did I always think "Old Tart" was a male?

You're thinking of OldFart!

I am not sure of a lot of peoples gender here lol

What is considered a necessity? I just wonder when you are going through the qualification process for SNAP or Food Stamps or whatever, if they review your income and your expenses? Do they consider high-speed internet and satellite TV a necessity?

These two services combined cost about $100 per month if not more.

No, internet and satellite TV aren't considered at all. If you go to the SNAP link which I believe was posted earlier you'll see from the application form what's required to qualify. Basically it's dependent on your income, the number of dependents in your household, your rent and utility costs. All expenses and income have to be verified. If you've run yourself into debt through purchasing toys such as 60" TVs, smart phones and whatever else, that's your problem and none of that is taken into consideration. In other words, you won't get any more than you're qualified for based on income and very basic living expenses such as rent and utilities.

The reason I asked this question is because it seems to me that the SNAP assistance was not used to provide necessary food, as this could have been accomplished by reducing expenses. The SNAP pays for Satellite television and Internet access. These two expenses equal the amount received from SNAP. Are these necessary expenses which should be paid for by taxpayers?

What is considered a necessity? I just wonder when you are going through the qualification process for SNAP or Food Stamps or whatever, if they review your income and your expenses? Do they consider high-speed internet and satellite TV a necessity?

These two services combined cost about $100 per month if not more.

No, internet and satellite TV aren't considered at all. If you go to the SNAP link which I believe was posted earlier you'll see from the application form what's required to qualify. Basically it's dependent on your income, the number of dependents in your household, your rent and utility costs. All expenses and income have to be verified. If you've run yourself into debt through purchasing toys such as 60" TVs, smart phones and whatever else, that's your problem and none of that is taken into consideration. In other words, you won't get any more than you're qualified for based on income and very basic living expenses such as rent and utilities.

The reason I asked this question is because it seems to me that the SNAP assistance was not used to provide necessary food, as this could have been accomplished by reducing expenses. The SNAP pays for Satellite television and Internet access. These two expenses equal the amount received from SNAP. Are these necessary expenses which should be paid for by taxpayers?

I'm not understanding. SNAP covers ONLY food and nothing else. It doesn't even cover toilet paper, cleaning supplies or any toiletries - only food. :S

SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

What is considered a necessity? I just wonder when you are going through the qualification process for SNAP or Food Stamps or whatever, if they review your income and your expenses? Do they consider high-speed internet and satellite TV a necessity?

These two services combined cost about $100 per month if not more.

No, internet and satellite TV aren't considered at all. If you go to the SNAP link which I believe was posted earlier you'll see from the application form what's required to qualify. Basically it's dependent on your income, the number of dependents in your household, your rent and utility costs. All expenses and income have to be verified. If you've run yourself into debt through purchasing toys such as 60" TVs, smart phones and whatever else, that's your problem and none of that is taken into consideration. In other words, you won't get any more than you're qualified for based on income and very basic living expenses such as rent and utilities.

The reason I asked this question is because it seems to me that the SNAP assistance was not used to provide necessary food, as this could have been accomplished by reducing expenses. The SNAP pays for Satellite television and Internet access. These two expenses equal the amount received from SNAP. Are these necessary expenses which should be paid for by taxpayers?

I'm not understanding. SNAP covers ONLY food and nothing else. It doesn't even cover toilet paper, cleaning supplies or any toiletries - only food. :S

SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Simple explanation. If someone cannot make ends meet they have two choices. Just like our government. They can either lower expenditures or increase revenue. If you need an extra $100 a month to survive you can either turn off satellite television and Internet or you can seek assistance via SNAP. If you choose the later then taxpayers are really subsidizing the former. Clear?

If you had chosen to turn off satellite tv and internet access then SNAP assistance would not have been required. This is why I asked the question earlier about whether tv and internet are considered necessities.

If you had chosen to turn off satellite tv and internet access then SNAP assistance would not have been required. This is why I asked the question earlier about whether tv and internet are considered necessities.

Oh, silly me, I didn't realize it was a PERSONAL dig. There I was thinking, totally irrationally, that you were asking out of interest how the SNAP program works. How could I have been so utterly blind.

So you know from my posts that I am currently a beneficiary of the SNAP program and you also know that I have satellite TV access, obviously have access to internet, thus brilliantly put two and two together to arrive at an assumption that I pay for both of these incredible luxuries and that therefore YOU as a taxpayer are footing my bills. Exactly what it is - an assumption. Spin the rotors a little more wildly and I'm sure you can come up with even more such assumptions, and you know what's said about those. 😀

If you had chosen to turn off satellite tv and internet access then SNAP assistance would not have been required. This is why I asked the question earlier about whether tv and internet are considered necessities.

Oh, silly me, I didn't realize it was a PERSONAL dig. There I was thinking, totally irrationally, that you were asking out of interest how the SNAP program works. How could I have been so utterly blind.

So you know from my posts that I am currently a beneficiary of the SNAP program and you also know that I have satellite TV access, obviously have access to internet, thus brilliantly put two and two together to arrive at an assumption that I pay for both of these incredible luxuries and that therefore YOU as a taxpayer are footing my bills. Exactly what it is - an assumption. Spin the rotors a little more wildly and I'm sure you can come up with even more such assumptions, and you know what's said about those. 😀

It is an assumption based on all of the info that you have put out there. You haven't denied the assumption. If you didn't want people to know so much about your financial affairs then why put them out there? I am just trying to understand how our tax dollars are spent, as a taxpayer I have a right to ask that question. If you want to keep your affairs to yourself then you have that right.

It is an assumption based on all of the info that you have put out there. You haven't denied the assumption. If you didn't want people to know so much about your financial affairs then why put them out there? I am just trying to understand how our tax dollars are spent, as a taxpayer I have a right to ask that question. If you want to keep your affairs to yourself then you have that right.

As I said, Chuckles, you have "thus brilliantly put two and two together to arrive at an assumption that I pay for both of these incredible luxuries and that therefore YOU as a taxpayer are footing my bills." Such a nosy bugger you are under the guise of protecting your interests as a taxpayer. The truth of the matter is that I answered a question about SNAP based on my own personal experience and obviously qualified for the assistance. Your obsessive need to prove your superiority with caustic comments has in this case turned around to bite you. As insufferable as that may be, do carry on. I've no intention of defending myself against such as you, nor do I need to explain my financial situation/affairs so carry on spinning the rotors to your heart's content. I am simply over and out. Go find some other poor sod to play with. 😀

It is an assumption based on all of the info that you have put out there. You haven't denied the assumption. If you didn't want people to know so much about your financial affairs then why put them out there? I am just trying to understand how our tax dollars are spent, as a taxpayer I have a right to ask that question. If you want to keep your affairs to yourself then you have that right.

As I said, Chuckles, you have "thus brilliantly put two and two together to arrive at an assumption that I pay for both of these incredible luxuries and that therefore YOU as a taxpayer are footing my bills." Such a nosy bugger you are under the guise of protecting your interests as a taxpayer. The truth of the matter is that I answered a question about SNAP based on my own personal experience and obviously qualified for the assistance. Your obsessive need to prove your superiority with caustic comments has in this case turned around to bite you. As insufferable as that may be, do carry on. I've no intention of defending myself against such as you, nor do I need to explain my financial situation/affairs so carry on spinning the rotors to your heart's content. I am simply over and out. Go find some other poor sod to play with. 😀

You are correct, you did not need to put your financial info out there. You chose to. As far as caustic comments, this is funny coming from the queen of caustic comments. And you still did not deny my assumptions.

Old Tart I agree with very little you say or post but I would love to meet you. You seem so damn interesting!

Not an insult by the way......

Hey I was pleasantly surprised to see my thread had been revived!

Jostvandog, we may not always agree on things here(ok, we never do), but for sure the members of this board are a colorful crew!

But to respond to Rotor, the food stamp program is a joke. In my opinion it is a waste of taxpayer money, a subsidy to grocery stores and food companies, and it hurts the restaurant business.

How about this for example.....someone on food stamps can go to the grocery store and buy a package of ferrero rocher chocolates for 20 dollars . This food purchase has no real nutrional value but maybe they just love eating rochers!

But if someone wanted to hop over to Little Cesars and pick up a pizza for 7 dollars to feed their whole family, they cannot pay with food stamps because its "hot" food. You could buy a frozen whole chicken at the store, but not one of those already cooked rotisserie style ones.

Its just stupid. In a perfect food stamp world, every time someone receiving food stamps bought a pack of smokes, or alcohol, or went out to dinner and paid cash for it, anytime anyone who receives food stamps spent their money on something like that that amount should be deducted from their benefit and given back to the taxpayers. But in a perfect world we wouldnt have food stamps lol.

The number of people on food stamps is going up all the time. So we will continue to subsidise their lifestyles for a long time as far as I can see.

I asked the question because I always wonder about the entitlement mentality. OT is very indignant that I would question her expenses but I always wonder if people think about where the money comes from that is given out by the various government programs. In order to give someone money the government TAKES the money from someone else. Money is not free. I wondered how much due diligence the government does before giving out taxpayer money, apparently not much.

Sorry to upset OT but she put her info out there to question. Is satellite tv and dsl internet a luxury or an entitlement?

Chuckles??? I never resort to name calling. Name calling is the last resort of those who have nothing useful to say.

Come one Rotor, you as much as anyone should know that the govt is horrible with money lol. I always challenge people to name ONE government assistance program that has been a success. If these programs worked, then over time there would be no need for them and they would be dissolved.

I suppose there are different mentalities for people who get assistance. Some people feel like they are owed all these programs, and always feel like what they get is never enough. Sometimes they even demand more.

Some people are truly grateful for these programs and work hard to get off them.

This is how I see it......I have been on food stamps before as well as other programs too. I dont feel like I deserved any of them. I dont set the guidelines for them, the government does. But if I qualify for something, then I will sure as hell go for it. I would much rather have a strong economy where everyone is making enough money and no one needed any assistance. But my fellow Americans elected and then re-elected this guy who keeps giving handouts at the expense of our economy. If thats the way the people want to run the game , then thats how I will play. So I guess you could say that my sense of "entitlement" comes from the fact that I qualify based on the standards set by our govt. "I am entitled because my govt says I am"

Also Oldtart I dont think Rotor was wrong to think you paid for your own internet....for example not too long ago you made this post in which you referred to "my account". I think its reasonable for someone to assume you pay for your internet if you have an account. I mean its possible that you have an account and someone else pays the bill, but that would not be what most people would infer from your statement.

I think you ower Rotor an apology

OldTart [ PM ]
Re: Broadbandvi Speed Issue
November 04, 2012 09:15AM
Registered: 1 year ago
Posts: 1,712

I'm waiting for Innovative to get to my area to put in the new lines (scheduled for this month) and hope/believe that this will improve upon the present 0.54 mbps I'm registering now on both uploads and downloads. I've had a lot of problems since moving a couple of months ago but must say that they've been extremely helpful and patient in solving random issues and have also credited my account generously for all the inconvenience.

@gringo..you used govt asst but didn't deserve it , why the hell would you apply?

The majority of Americans that are running the country believe in spreading the wealth and feeding the hungry. It's only money. Would you rather see starving, hungry children begging on the streets? Because that would likely be the result of cutting off food stamps.

I still believe the system works for the better. And many more people benefit from assistance and move on with life eventually independently.

Very true gringoii. Maybe a party meet and greet of this colorful crew somewhere would be a frickin riot!

i think there are times in our lives when we need the help. i have lived in section 8 when in the states. that was a big help. i used food stamps for 1 month back when i was married to the first husband, he was laid off of his job, as soon as he got another job i did not get them again.

there are many people out of work now through no fault of their own who need the help some of these programs provide. i believe that they were put in place to provide a temporary aid.

i do believe that there are people who "use" the system. I do not think OT is one of them. I do think the system is rampant with fraud.

Sheiba, what I said was that I didnt feel like I deserved any of them. The govt sets the guidelines and according to them I qualified for the assistance. If I qualify why wouldnt I take the assistance? Isnt that the way its supposed to work?

You don't feel you "deserve" to eat. That may be a self esteem issue. Everyone deserves to eat.
I have , thankfully, thus far not had to rely on any sort of unemployment or food stamps but that doesn't mean I will never be in that situation and I hope if I am ,assistance will be available for me so I can eat. Will I make an effort to not rely on assistance? Of course.

The majority of Americans that are running the country believe in spreading the wealth and feeding the hungry. It's only money. Would you rather see starving, hungry children begging on the streets? Because that would likely be the result of cutting off food stamps.

We are not talking about starving children here. I asked the question because our government is not a charity. These tax dollars are not moneys which people gave voluntarily, these are dollars which were taken by the government using it's Bully Pulpit. Taxation. This is not a case of whether OT would starve or not if she did not get assistance. Worse case in order to achieve the same buying power for necessities she would have had to do without satellite television and dsl internet.

My question was are these items to be considered necessities? Should the US government use the force of law to take money from some of its citizens to ensure that other of its citizens have access to satellite television and dsl internet? I feel that if the government is going to forcibly take money then it has an obligation to ensure that the money is spent wisely.

You obviously feel that the country should be a more socialist country, many of us feel that capitalism is a more efficient system. I am sure this discussion will continue for decades.

This same discussion is occurring on other local boards as well. From CruciansInFocus:
Vince Danet on December 9, 2012 at 5:16 pm
I’ve been musing about this fiscal cliff snow-job & I notice that no one is talking seriously about reducing federal spending… So since they insist about talking about tax increases, I break out my two remaining functioning brain cells to do some basic math & I crunched the numbers floating around on this issue:
This proposed tax increase on taxpayers earning more than $250k, that our president & democrats are demanding, would confiscate roughly $84 billion dollars/year in additional ‘revenue’ for the feds. Hmmm… the feds burn about $9.8 billion each day. So if I divide 84/9.8 I get approximately 8.6 days. So I ask myself… where is the rest of the cash coming from for the other 356.4 days in the year? Middle class people like me… perhaps… maybe… definitely? Plus increased fees, tariffs, fuel taxes, more foreign borrowing… the list goes on.
The rub is that no one is saying that this ‘taxing the rich supposed solution’ will not solve the budget gap… We do live in interesting times.

Vince Danet on December 9, 2012 at 7:17 pm
The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.
Over 100 million people in the U.S. get welfare from the feds. This figure doesn’t include Social Security, nor Medicare; but it does include non-citizens. Food stamp recipients alone number 47.7 million. In 2006, the number of civilian government employees, including state & local government personnel, was over 19 million. The Virgin Islands has over 7,400 government personnel. To be fair, all 19 million aren’t there to support the welfare system, but they too are supported by taxpayers.
Our country & territory have been split into two very distinct camps; taxpayers and, let’s be controversial, moochers. Many taxpayers are unhappy with the welfare system as currently constituted. Like our election system, the entitlement system is rife with patterns of abuse, dereliction, waste and misconduct.
If over 100 million are moochers and there are 19 million government workers overall, how many taxpayers then are there in our country left to support them? In 2012, there were 138 million tax filers, of which half didn’t pay any taxes. Hmmm, that leaves under 70 million taxpayers to support the 119 million moochers & the supporting government infrastructure in a U.S. population of 315 million people. The actual taxpayers can’t hope to support both the welfare recipients and the government infrastructure that administers it, hence entitlements contribute in a major way to the continued deficits and excessive borrowing by governments at all levels. Again, given the statistics, actual taxpayers can’t afford to support this system. Worse, taxpayers can’t effect change as voters because they are outnumbered by moochers at the ballot box!
http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/07/09/open-forum/

These are interesting questions. Should the federal government just take all of the money and dole it out equally to everyone? Would that be more fair than the current system. I personally think not.

OT volunteered some very personal information. I think it is unneccessary and inappropriate to continue using OT as the example.

I and most Americans disagree with your opinion and unfortunately, in your case, the majority rules. Democracy, isn't it grand?

OT volunteered some very personal information. I think it is unneccessary and inappropriate to continue using OT as the example.

I and most Americans disagree with your opinion and unfortunately, in your case, the majority rules. Democracy, isn't it grand?

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy. "

This quote has been attributed to many different people from Alexis de Tocqueville to Prof. Alexander Frazer Tytler.

The founding fathers knew this and when the United States was originally established only landowners were allowed to vote.

"The founding fathers knew this and when the United States was originalyy established only land owners were allowed to vote"
Yes, until women started to own property and then the policy was quickly revised.