Thus endeth this day's lesson in irony

Don't give the "progressives" any more ideas for mindless votes unless you want to see "I'm with her" stickers on a racoon's butt.

And yet a casual scroll through the 10 states with the highest per capita SNAP recipients shows that most of them have GOP-controlled legislatures and/or Republican governors. Very odd that all those "liberal free-loaders" should vote Republican.

Nice work, you found one red piece of a 10,000 pc jigsaw puzzle and decided its a car. Or at last you want everyone else to believe its a car.

But only when done correctly. Never confuse irony with mere coincidence. Or sarcasm. All three are somewhat related.

You realize that most people who get food stamps are unable to earn money to get food in other ways. Sure, some of them abuse the system, but that's true with all systems.

Thanks!

Up to 2% of the US military qualify and receive SNAP benefits. Up to 25% receive aid from food banks. Veterans receiving food stamps are around 7%.

Among the general population, about 60% of the recipients are currently employed, while 90% of SNAP recipients worked the year prior or the year after being approved.

20% of the SNAP recipients are elderly and/or disabled.

Fraud? SNAP has the lowest rate of fraud of any government program. Bigest abusers are not the individual recipients, but the actual businesses approved to accept snap purchases.

For every dollar spent on SNAP benefits, it ends up adding $1.73 back into the economy.

Oh, that that one group, disabled and elderly? I only receive disability payments. Because I worked since I was 14, my income is too high to qualify. I did recieve SNAP when my wife and I were together: $18/ month. And I was the sole income.

Agencies have to show purpose to sustain their existence. If they report certain stats to meet criteria, they will continue receiving monies to shelling out to people. As far as fraud, it's only as low as it is reported to the public. Many fraud complaints are disregarded because there is not enough evidence or manpower to do anything about.

Sorry, BS answer. Back it up with hard data, then it will be worth something. If what you say were true, then the first agency that would need disbanded would be the US military.

As for fraud, Medicaid and Medicare has had more fraud perpetrated on those agencies in one year than SNAP has in several.

And you believe the private sector doesn't have it.

Remember, if you see something questionable, there are laws in place that are set up to protect whistle blowers. It may take some time to recover after the initial retaliation ID unleashed, but people with integrity survive.

Then reportbiy, unless you are a traitor tonthe country. Until then, it's a crock off caca and you know it.

Please clarify

If a person works for the government and
sees coworkers, or their managers, breaking the law and fail to report it, they are guilty of the same crime as the offender.

Traitor, or treason, isn't the proper term. Actually it would fall anywhere from complicity at the low end of the scale to sedition, at the high end.

Don't need statistics, just the knowledge that the reason so many of the recipients work is because it recently (last few years +/-) became a requirement to maintain qualification for benefits.
However, according to your stats, while 29% of people on the dole are in the "why would anybody have a problem with them getting grub stubs" group, that leaves 71% of recipients who are not...and if every dollar spent returns $1.73 to the economy how does it make sense that we all aren't being subsidized? Look at the money being lost!
While my fat @$$ has ZERO PROBLEM with anyone getting plenty to eat, you have to admit that the program does present some interesting dichotomies, such as people who "can't afford to eat" yapping on $700 iPhones and maintaining $180 a month phone bills....I mean, you aren't being given free food so you can afford your cable bill - or are you? Is THAT where the 73 cent return on "investment" comes from?

Good question. By using SNAP to supplement their grocery budget, they now have money to purchase other necessities, be it clothes, hygiene, medications, or put gas in the car if they have one.

Unlike the rich, every penny a low income household has gets put back into the economy.

Not sure what line of business you're in, but unless you deal only in high end luxury items, like Trump, your employer benefits from that extra buying power.

Yes, we need to disband the military and stop the insane spending across the board.

Uh oh... Looks like my comment has turned into a flame war... I want no part of it until everybody calms the f*ck down and stops acting like conspiracy theorists or saviors of the world or some combination of the two...

You made a strong argument until "For every dollar spent on SNAP benefits, it ends up adding $1.73 back into the economy" this is the voodoo-est of economics. Trust me I'm not bashing the program and I believe it is one of the more useful ones out there, but acceptance of numbers like that are why we are almost to 20 trillion in debt. For that statement to be true, for every dollar in benefits there would be .73 in administrative costs. If that is true, is letting the money go to the fed and come back to the states really the most efficient way to do it.

Got it a little mixed there, John. I assumed money going back to the Fed was 27¢ admin cost. The $1 figure would be money spent for other necessities, like clothes, TP, dish soap, etc.

As for the money going back to then fed, and then States, the reason is, to me, obvious: too many states wouldn't offer the programs. America saw this when Social Security was in the process. When FDR signed it into law, only 17 States had any old age pension program. A lot of lobbying was done by the FOE (Fraternal Order of Eagles. Member in good standing Aerie 395)
and since FDR had been a member for years, he was happy to sign it. But only 17 States had any such plan. Thirty-one did not!

Obamacare has its critics, but will lead the way to single parer eventually. But the conservative States continue to fight it. This is why the federal government has to oversee it. They set the minimum standards, and it is up to the States to determine to add to it.

Sorry it's so long, but I'd sound like a jackass if I just said "it's obvious to me".

If snap was so good for the economy then it should be mandatory for every man woman and child. I don't deny its a program that when you need it, you NEED it. I've had to use it before, as a single dad. If it had just been me I would not have. I don't believe the fed is the way to go for any social assistance though. We are talking a different world then when FDR was in office. The federal government has broken up many of the social safety nets that were in place back then, starting with encouraging through subsidizing single parent homes, limiting what can be done by churches and other civic groups, just to mention a couple. The fed has gradually pushed its way in and said "we got this whether you like it or not" and taken it all over. That's how they've amassed so much power. Everyone has been to eager to hand them their money and assume they have everything under control and pay to relieve themselves of social responsibility while the corruption lines politician pockets with that money. Now while everyone is watching Washington and focusing on what is happening there, very few can tell you who their state senator is or mayor and none save a very few can begin to tell you what they are up to. The short of it, its a lot easier to keep the crooks honest when they are a few hours away instead of 2500 miles away. Bring governance back to the states as it was intended by the founders,

Another excellent comment by reallyitsjohn

Thanks!

Swiggy, that somehow government assistant helps the economy is bogus, just like the money spent on the military. The reason? We are borrowing money to pay for it. In short, our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren are footing the bill and the gravy train is going to end, it actually is already starting to end.

I don't think it will end any time soon. Our corporate overlords have to have a whipping boy to distract how they are fleecing the country. There's too much complicancy in the government and to cut off the gravy train includes a lot of employees that would love nothing better than to blow the whistle on their bosses. Why do you think Hillary propped up DWS after the Wikileaks posts came out. Schultz knows too much.

Regardless of who ends up in the White House this election, I foresee a full Cale, military involvement in the Middle East. Doesn't matter how many terrorists make it to this country to play havok. The gravy train will keep on rolling to the military suppliers.

If you get a chance, there's a book out about military spending that's as true today as it was back in the 30s: it's called War Is A Racket by Gen. Smedley Butler (USMC,Ret.) It shows how the only winners in any war ae the banksters and the military suppliers. Not just arms manufacturers, but the people that make the MREs, the companies that make the uniforms, the medals and even the company that supplies the paper that government runs on.

Smedley Butler was a smart man AND a badass despite having a name like Smedley. I concur with all of the above. People (including me) sometimes get sucked into thinking politics is supposed to be a team sport. If you sat Americans of different parties and persuasions down in the same room, you'd find that we have more in common than all the crap the Corporate-Globalist politicians and their media w**res use to divide us.

:) A very true statement.

I got turned on to it by a conservative page on Facebook. A friend shared it, there was an intelligent discussion, so I went to the library to take it out. They had to borrow it from Indy because they didn't have a copy. I read it in one evening, then discovered, after returning it that it was available online as a free down load.

Yes, we all want this to be a great country, But getting people to think for themelves is difficult. Most never learn.

Actually the money spent on SNAP is covered by our tax revenue. The budget for it is MINISCULE!

And most of em are White!

Really? You're gonna play the race card? Wow...

Triggered Conservatives coming your way :[

Yup!

You may be right but I don't agree with your statement.

Aaaaaah SNAP! My replies aren't being listed under the comments I'm responding to!

It happens. As for Internet, anymore, it's needed as much as a telephone or electricity. Heck, I've been on disability for 8 years, but had to sign up for it online even then. Same now goes for SNAP, and so many other services. Even applying for jobs.

Eh, internet can be done without, as can electricity and telephone. We become enslaved by dependence. And $18, as was your case, of benefits seems hardly worth the $30 - $60 per month internet bill. Again, not against dishing out a few meals (<~~~groovy, a pun), but enabling poor decision making and money management isn't benevolence. For example, I'd be curious to know the statistical percentage of recipients that smoke 1 or more packs of cigarettes a day. Cigs = $4/average....for $4 you could buy 1 box spaghetti ($1)+1 jar sauce (1.98)+1 can italian green beans (.68) = $3.66 (leaves 34 cents for those states where food is taxed). That buys dinner! I fed a family of 3 breakfast, lunch, and dinner on $20 a week. Yeah, that was 31 cents a plate x 3 meals x 3 people x 7 days. That's the reason those commercials tell you that little rascals overseas can be fed for "just pennies a day".

I remember those days of $20 week food budget. Of course, my wife always went over budget because she didn't understand what it took to earn the money and how to spend it. In my dotage, though, I've become spoiled. I picked up some ribeyes for dinners this month. Looking at my shelves, I'm prepared if a blizzard hits.

I know, right...the downside is now that I can afford to eat what I want, when I want, I'm a lard belly!

I know. I put on at least 20 pounds since I have to eat my own cooking. Damn, I'm a good cook.

Practically every employer requires that you submit a job application through their website. Therefore, home internet is an essential utility these days.

Just like satellite tv. 3 years in that business showed me one thing that applies here. Everyone that wanted their "tv cut on" chose internet AFTER they got their tv.

you can go to a public library, job service, welfare office, mcdonald's and use a computer and/or internet for free. next obstacle?

I know for a fact that you need a library card to use a library computer, and McDonalds will kick you out if you use the Wi-Fi without purchasing food. They don't like loiterers.

library card is free...and i don't know what mcd's you go to but I've never seen that happen...you can pick up their wifi from outside anyway...these are trivial issues, not stumbling blocks...gimme something harder

Stumped are you? :) Redirect! But in answer to your question: Yes, I am for a tax funded library card, and, if you will relate facts in your responses, I also said that I am not against a tax funded food program. However, I AM against subsidizing people for life and enabling them to avoid paying for their groceries so they can spend their money on cell phones and satellite television. And, before you ask, the answer is YES to my believing that people are not "entitled" to those luxuries. Food and shelter are priorities in life, phone-internet-cable bundle packages are not. If you can't afford something you start with the least needed, just like the people do who are footing the grub stub grocery bill.