1 in 10 Use Food Stamps.

[Godwynn]

CNN

With the national economy in meltdown, more Americans than ever are relying on the federal aid program to keep from going hungry. In October, more than one in 10 people -- about 31 million -- were using the food stamp program to get by, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

To get a better idea of what it's like to live on a food stamp budget, CNN correspondent Sean Callebs has decided to eat for a month on $176 and blog about the experience on CNN.com.

That's a situation many people, Thomas included, can relate to. Thomas, who said he had been working steadily since he was 13 years old, now receives $175 per month for food. That's about $5.83 per day -- less than $2 per meal.

The point of this thread is two-fold. First, is anyone else surprised that the number is that high?

Secondly, is $175 per month adequate for survival? What about a family?

What should be done about this? Should we end the program and tell them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Should we increase aid to the welfare-bums?

 

[bhsup]

Yeah, right. Maybe SOME of that 31 million really are relying on the program. My gut tells me that the majority are milking the system though.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

No, I'm not surprised. I'm more surprised that there are so many people around me who don't want to take advantage of the program, who actually need it. (edit - About half my friends are now laid off.)

 

[Gilder]

I think Elta did a thread not too long ago about this, and how $175 was perfectly fine.

 

[general_kill]

Yeah, right. Maybe SOME of that 31 million really are relying on the program. My gut tells me that the majority are milking the system though.

Is there any cost effective way to get rid of the welfare abusers? Hiring people to investigate would probably cost more than letting them abuse the system. But it just seems unfair...

 

[bhsup]

I'd rather spend more to weed out the abusers and see them punished than let them get away with it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'd rather spend as little as possible in order to feed the needy.

 

[general_kill]

I'd rather spend more to weed out the abusers and see them punished than let them get away with it.

How should we punish abusers? Fine them? Jail them? I doubt they have the money to pay fines. If they do have the money, I don't think they will pay. And even if we can take money from them, it will likely incite them to commit crimes to get the money back. And if we jail them, not only do we waste a lot more tax dollars, but we also make it difficult for them to ever get a job again. Since many employers don't hire those with a criminal past, it will likely force the welfare abusers to become legit welfare recipients or incite them to commit crime.

Perhaps a better approach is to find the source of welfare abuse.

 

[dutchfire]

Only in America...

How can a nation so rich allow 10% of it's citizens to be so poor.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Only in America...

How can a nation so rich allow 10% of it's citizens to be so poor.

I think it's meant to be an incentive to get them to work for a living.

edit - Ok, my response looks sarcastic, but I think that is really why we allow it.

 

[diggygames]

wow, very surprising. $175 is definitely enough for a single guy, and definitely nowhere close to enough for a family.

CNN





The point of this thread is two-fold. First, is anyone else surprised that the number is that high?

Secondly, is $175 per month adequate for survival? What about a family?

What should be done about this? Should we end the program and tell them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Should we increase aid to the welfare-bums?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, right. Maybe SOME of that 31 million really are relying on the program. My gut tells me that the majority are milking the system though.

 

[Abaddon]

??? What relevance is the Nile ???

 

[Godwynn]

??? What relevance is the Nile ???

The Nile.

Denial.

 

[general_kill]

The Nile.

Denial.

Ohhh... that makes a lot more sense. When I looked at the picture, the Nile Delta looked like a bosom and the Nile River looked like the milk flowing from it.

 

[Abaddon]

The Nile.

Denial.

I even used the very joke on a friend today!

 

[Integral]

The point of this thread is two-fold. First, is anyone else surprised that the number is that high?

Secondly, is $175 per month adequate for survival? What about a family?

What should be done about this? Should we end the program and tell them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Should we increase aid to the welfare-bums?

Regarding #1, I'm not suprised - 36 million Americans live below the official poverty line, and food stamp eligibility is calculated relative to the poverty line, so it makes some sense.

I've been poking around Google to find out where food stamp eligibility begins and ends. The basic rule is that if a household is making 130% or less of that household's specific poverty line*, it qualifies for food stamps. If the household has an elderly person in it, that threshold is raised to 165% of the household-specific poverty line. Here are the relevant poverty lines and food stamp thresholds:

household type | poverty line | food stamp threshold
1 person | $10,400 | $13,520
2 people | $14,000 | $18,200
3 people | $17,600 | $22,880
4 people | 21,200 | $27,560

poverty line from the Department of Health and Human Services; food stamp threshold, my calculation.

 

[Godwynn]

household type | poverty line | food stamp threshold
1 person | $10,400 | $13,520
2 people | $14,000 | $18,200
3 people | $17,600 | $22,880
4 people | 21,200 | $27,560

Do you know how much aid is given based on household size? Surely that $176 isn't the same across all spectrums.

 

[StarWorms]

Should we end the program and tell them to pull themselves up by the bootstraps? Should we increase aid to the welfare-bums?

Ending the program would be an awful thing to do in a recession. They're very unlikely to be able to get a job in the current financial climate. If anything it should be increased to help people pull through.

 

[Integral]

Do you know how much aid is given based on household size? Surely that $176 isn't the same across all spectrums.

I can find out!

This data is from California, but I *think* it's standardized across all the states (?).

Household Size | Maximum Monthly Allotment
1 | $ 162 [I thought this was $176? Am I missing something? edit - this is for 2007-2008. It may have changed recently?]
2 | $ 298
3 | $ 426
4 | $ 542
5 | $ 643
6 | $ 772
7 | $ 853
8 | $ 975
Each additional person… | + $ 122

Now, these are maximum allowances. The process to figuring out how much you actually receive is a bit more difficult.

First, calculate your monthly income.
Next, subtract out a slew of deductions: 20% earned income deduction, standard deduction (which varies based on household size), dependent deduction, utilities deduction, and a few others.
Third, see if you have any income net of deductions. If you do, some of that will count against your food stamp allotment (30%, to be exact).

Example: If the household’s net income is $100, the maximum monthly allotment of $298 (for a two-person household) will be reduced by $30, and the household will receive $268 in food stamps. If the household has no net income after subtracting allowable income deductions, it will get the maximum allotment.

[Why does qualifying for food stamps have to be this difficult?]