I oppose fundamental changes to the SNAP program

[cmh6476 1,022]

While I (nor my parents) have never received SNAP or food stamp benefits or been on free or reduced lunch at school (I think we qualified growing up but my parents chose to pay for the cost of my brother and I's meals), this issue is really in my wheelhouse.  I thought another specific thread could focus on Medicaid and changes to that program instead of all the back and forth that these political threads turn into and this eventually will too.  But I'd rather carve out SNAP from all the other big beautiful bill threads and focus on it, because I think it would be interesting to how our more moderate and reasonable posters feel about the issue.  We already know where the usual suspects are going to land .

I'm very involved on advocacy work on food insecurity issues and am connected with others across the country doing the same.  Coordinating ads to push public outreach to elected officials, direct interaction with both federal and state lawmakers, blah blah blah who cares.

The dilemma I see is that the left side wants to come with messaging where "oh noes we can't cut SNAP and Medicaid for needy families" and I get into conversations with state officials on the other side of the spectrum and it ends up being a "well I heard from someone that someone was selling their SNAP benefits for cash and why should we worry about maintaining the program when the integrity of the program is at that level and when the costs of these programs is crippling our nation?".  And I'm somewhere in the middle.

I'm not as hardline on changes to the Thrifty Food Plan (which I acknowledge I'm not extremely well versed on) or work requirements.  I think plenty of debate could be had on work requirements, and what I understand from the bill coming forward  it would:

• Raise work requirements from age 59 to 65
• Limit a states ability to waive work requirements during levels of high unemployment
• SNAP generally exempts families with children from work requirements, and the bill would narrow this exemption

Most of this I can stomach and live with.  I'm somewhat concerned about issues around childcare and if some parents would still choose to stay home rather than work even without the increased SNAP benefit, and then is it the kids who are suffering more from these changes than those crappy parents?  Maybe, and I think you could debate this issue and won't really know the impact until implementation.

But the problem I'm really worried about is the state cost shift, and making the program more of a state run program with reimbursed funding levels from the federal government, rather than a federal entitlement program.  Some states do pretty well at running federal programs while other states aren't as good at it.  My preference would be to keep it a federal program, even if some of the other significant changes are implemented, to make sure it's a consistent program no matter where you live in the US or its territories.

[weepaws 3,160]

Trumps America, to starve people, winning. 

[lickin_starfish 1,917]

People on SNAP should forfeit their voting rights while they are on the teat. There should be a five year lifetime limit that they can be on it.

[seafoam1 2,888]

4 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

People on SNAP should forfeit their voting rights while they are on the teat. There should be a five year lifetime limit that they can be on it.

[Fnord 2,155]

4 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

While I (nor my parents) have never received SNAP or food stamp benefits or been on free or reduced lunch at school (I think we qualified growing up but my parents chose to pay for the cost of my brother and I's meals), this issue is really in my wheelhouse.  I thought another specific thread could focus on Medicaid and changes to that program instead of all the back and forth that these political threads turn into and this eventually will too.  But I'd rather carve out SNAP from all the other big beautiful bill threads and focus on it, because I think it would be interesting to how our more moderate and reasonable posters feel about the issue.  We already know where the usual suspects are going to land .

I'm very involved on advocacy work on food insecurity issues and am connected with others across the country doing the same.  Coordinating ads to push public outreach to elected officials, direct interaction with both federal and state lawmakers, blah blah blah who cares.

The dilemma I see is that the left side wants to come with messaging where "oh noes we can't cut SNAP and Medicaid for needy families" and I get into conversations with state officials on the other side of the spectrum and it ends up being a "well I heard from someone that someone was selling their SNAP benefits for cash and why should we worry about maintaining the program when the integrity of the program is at that level and when the costs of these programs is crippling our nation?".  And I'm somewhere in the middle.

I'm not as hardline on changes to the Thrifty Food Plan (which I acknowledge I'm not extremely well versed on) or work requirements.  I think plenty of debate could be had on work requirements, and what I understand from the bill coming forward  it would:

• Raise work requirements from age 59 to 65
• Limit a states ability to waive work requirements during levels of high unemployment
• SNAP generally exempts families with children from work requirements, and the bill would narrow this exemption

Most of this I can stomach and live with.  I'm somewhat concerned about issues around childcare and if some parents would still choose to stay home rather than work even without the increased SNAP benefit, and then is it the kids who are suffering more from these changes than those crappy parents?  Maybe, and I think you could debate this issue and won't really know the impact until implementation.

But the problem I'm really worried about is the state cost shift, and making the program more of a state run program with reimbursed funding levels from the federal government, rather than a federal entitlement program.  Some states do pretty well at running federal programs while other states aren't as good at it.  My preference would be to keep it a federal program, even if some of the other significant changes are implemented, to make sure it's a consistent program no matter where you live in the US or its territories.

Good post. Agreed that it should be federal given the stark resource differences between some of the states. Wyoming, WV, MS simply don't have the same ability to fund programs that CA, NY, TX do.

There will be fraud of some kind in every program, unfortunately. That doesn't mean we should torpedo the positive outcomes, though. 

[The Real timschochet 6,572]

19 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

People on SNAP should forfeit their voting rights while they are on the teat.

Only if you’re willing to extend this forfeiture to any person, or company, that receives government benefits of any kind. But perhaps you are. 

[lickin_starfish 1,917]

22 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Only if you’re willing to extend this forfeiture to any person, or company, that receives government benefits of any kind. But perhaps you are. 

I am.

[WhiteWonder 2,712]

4 hours ago, cmh6476 said:

While I (nor my parents) have never received SNAP or food stamp benefits or been on free or reduced lunch at school (I think we qualified growing up but my parents chose to pay for the cost of my brother and I's meals), this issue is really in my wheelhouse.  I thought another specific thread could focus on Medicaid and changes to that program instead of all the back and forth that these political threads turn into and this eventually will too.  But I'd rather carve out SNAP from all the other big beautiful bill threads and focus on it, because I think it would be interesting to how our more moderate and reasonable posters feel about the issue.  We already know where the usual suspects are going to land .

I'm very involved on advocacy work on food insecurity issues and am connected with others across the country doing the same.  Coordinating ads to push public outreach to elected officials, direct interaction with both federal and state lawmakers, blah blah blah who cares.

The dilemma I see is that the left side wants to come with messaging where "oh noes we can't cut SNAP and Medicaid for needy families" and I get into conversations with state officials on the other side of the spectrum and it ends up being a "well I heard from someone that someone was selling their SNAP benefits for cash and why should we worry about maintaining the program when the integrity of the program is at that level and when the costs of these programs is crippling our nation?".  And I'm somewhere in the middle.

I'm not as hardline on changes to the Thrifty Food Plan (which I acknowledge I'm not extremely well versed on) or work requirements.  I think plenty of debate could be had on work requirements, and what I understand from the bill coming forward  it would:

• Raise work requirements from age 59 to 65
• Limit a states ability to waive work requirements during levels of high unemployment
• SNAP generally exempts families with children from work requirements, and the bill would narrow this exemption

Most of this I can stomach and live with.  I'm somewhat concerned about issues around childcare and if some parents would still choose to stay home rather than work even without the increased SNAP benefit, and then is it the kids who are suffering more from these changes than those crappy parents?  Maybe, and I think you could debate this issue and won't really know the impact until implementation.

But the problem I'm really worried about is the state cost shift, and making the program more of a state run program with reimbursed funding levels from the federal government, rather than a federal entitlement program.  Some states do pretty well at running federal programs while other states aren't as good at it.  My preference would be to keep it a federal program, even if some of the other significant changes are implemented, to make sure it's a consistent program no matter where you live in the US or its territories.

While I am not completely against SNAP and assistance programs in general, one of the first things that comes to mind is that when you chose to have kids, you chose to support them and should you really need anyone's assistance? Abortions still exist, right? ... that is my over the top, sarcastic response

Now before the super libs jump down my throat, I am fully aware that circumstances happen and people lose their jobs or get pay cuts etc. I already said I am not totally against assistance programs. 

I am fully FOR any measure that can put an end to fraud in these programs. No one should be receiving government benefits and then selling them for cash. The benefits are for something specific and I don't want to hear any nonsense about how cash can be used for other things the family needs, because lets be real... For food assistance specifically, I am FOR any rules and regulations that dictate what benefits can be used for and what they can't be used for. I remember this debate from another thread and I still believe that these programs have every right to dictate the benefits only be used on healthy foods and they can choose what the deem healthy. 

Work requirements should exist, imo and be expanded. Making these programs exempt from work requirements makes it far too easy for people to pop out kids and be happy to spend their whole lives living off assistance programs and in many cases getting more assistance than they even need, living above their means (of which they really have none). 

As for your concern with states running things, I won't disagree.

also, when I think about assistance programs, specifically food ones, I can't help but think about how dirt cheap it is to grow your own fruits and vegetables... even if all you have is a small balcony or patio with planters. Or the fact that I often go fishing/crabbing and keep and cook what I catch. But yeah, as long as the government is paying us, lets get our cases of soda and microwave dinners.

[nobody 2,639]

Careful bro.  Maga might murder your ass

[League Champion 1,907]

The system is abused. Too many people take advantage of it. Something has to be done 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,188]

What kind of man can’t feed his family? 

[Gepetto 1,340]

There aren't any men around in some of these families.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,188]

1 minute ago, Gepetto said:

There aren't any men around in some of these families.

Ok. I’m good with feeding women and children and those with disabilities.  Not able bodied men of sound mind.  Let the men pick up trash or clean the poop off the streets in Democrat controlled cities. 

[cmh6476 1,022]

48 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Ok. I’m good with feeding women and children and those with disabilities.  Not able bodied men of sound mind.  Let the men pick up trash or clean the poop off the streets in Democrat controlled cities. 

That's kind of how the system is setup now

[Hardcore troubadour 15,188]

26 minutes ago, cmh6476 said:

That's kind of how the system is setup now

Nope. Seen it first hand too many times to count. Man is around. He just ain’t payin. You think they leave their neighborhood because they knocked some chick up and they are nowhere to be found? Give me a break.  He’s still at his mom’s place. 

[BarneyFife 29]

23 hours ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

What kind of man can’t feed his family? Jed Clampet???  
 

let me tell ya a story about a man named Jed.  Poor mother f ‘er BARELY kept his family fed.  Then one day he’s out hunting for his food.  Out from the bushes jumped granny in the nude.  NAKED that is.  No clothes on.  
 

We all struggle.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,223]

Another way to treat the symptom instead of the root cause. The normal tactic of the government.

[listen2me 23 1,840]

If you pay no income tax you shouldnt be able to vote with my money.  

If that cant be done then there should be harder restrictions on what you can buy with my money.  

[seafoam1 2,888]

3 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

Another way to treat the symptom instead of the root cause. The normal tactic of the government.

You have to take a trip to Columbia for the root cause. Just ask kamala harris. She knows best. 

[Drizzay 710]