But That's None Of My Business

You nailed it!

Wow. That's some next-level misogyny there.

Facts over feelings. No one cares about your emotions

Cool. What facts support the perspective in this meme?

How about the percentage of single women on welfare, for one?

It's my job and the numbers don't lie. Neither do the clowns coming in to apply for benefits with a new iPhone, nails all done, brand new weave, brand new leased Hyundai... Claiming they're independent while applying for benefits and collecting child support and alimony, trying to claim disability.

What facts support that this is misogynistic in any way?

What is the percentage of single women on welfare? According to whom? What percentage of those tout themselves as independent, vs. those who recognize their need for aid? How does that percentage stack up against the number of women who are indeed independent, including the ones who aren't particularly vocal about it, and those who don't *need* a man but choose to have one?

Numbers can absolutely lie, if they are 1) taken out of context, 2) misconstrued, 3) collected/calculated improperly, or 4) downright fabricated.

Since you are one of the people on the front lines of government assistance (and you have my utmost respect for that - I'm sure it's a thankless and frustrating job), I'd suggest you to keep a personal, anonymous, unofficial tally for a month. Count the number of people who you see in your office that fit your description above (i.e. have a blatant outward show that the benefits they receive are either misused or unnecessary), the number among those whose applications are successful, and what percentage of the total benefit-receiving population your office serves is composed of that group.

I don't need you to post your findings, nor should you if you value your job. I just think it might be interesting for you to compile your own numbers, that you know you can trust, and when the month is complete, for you to take a step back and look at them.

Granted, even this tally doesn't take into account what each person is dealing with (and therefore isn't completely reliable in assessing whether they actually need benefits), doesn't track how long each person has been taking and will take benefits, and isn't representative of the nation as a whole (or even the state or Congressional district in which you reside). Still, you'd have quantifiable evidence for or against your impressions of your community.

I investigate fraud so I've already done my own research and kept my own stats, as well as using other state and federal information. They actually do track length of receipt, and go further in tracking generational trends. Considering I work in fraud, it actually does determine if they actually need benefits or not.

Fun fact - SNAP has no asset limit. You can have millions in the bank and not be working by choice and receive maximum SNAP. I had a family who had sold a cell phone business, I reviewed their bank records to see over $750k cash. But because it's not considered "income" they were getting around $500/month.

I have endless evidence and mountains of facts that my opinions are based on. To be honest, when I started this job I was pretty much a bleeding heart liberal. Then I saw how it really works. How the Democrats love to keep the poor dependant, and therefore, ensuring Democrat votes.

To start, your job is super important, and I'm glad you're doing it. Thanks.

You've given exactly one verifiable fact so far - that SNAP in your state has no asset limit. And that's messed up. However, even that is problematic - you didn't specify that the lack of an asset limit isn't part of the federal program (rather, it's something states have the ability to implement for themselves - 16 states still have asset limits), and you're coupling it with the insinuation that the couple received cash. That's not how SNAP works. There are no food stamps, there are no checks from the government. That couple was eligible to spend up to $500/month using their SNAP debit card, which only they can use and whose balance cannot be transferred. They obviously don't need it, and I hope you were able to shut that down, but the way you're presenting it leaves out some key details..

Beyond that, I just have to take your word for it that everything else you've said is true. I don't do that with anyone on the internet who hasn't proven their credibility over a long stretch of time, sorry.

Where did I mention they received any cash assistance? I solely referenced SNAP so pretty obvious the $500 benefit is a SNAP benefit, since nothing else was mentioned.

You're incorrect that only they can use the card. It uses a PIN number, no ID required. EBT cards are frequently sold and benefits used by someone else.

The states that have asset limits are doing it correctly, but only 16/52 doing their job is a problem. Again, it boils down to encouraging dependency over self-sufficiency, which is the exact opposite of what my job's purpose should be. Gotta have those votes!

Take a look at the "ABAWD" rules for SNAP. Short version, if you're able bodied adult without dependents, no disability, you need to be working. If not, you can only get SNAP for 3 months in a 3 year period. My liberal Democrat state, along with many others, completely waives this requirement.

I know that YOU know SNAP doesn't involve cash or physical food stamps, but there's a misconception among a huge portion of the population (from all political perspectives) that SNAP either gives away money or still issues physical, untraceable (and therefore sell-able) food stamps. In the current environment filled with wildly conflicting reports on things that are really quite simple, there is an unfortunate need to be explicit.

I had heard that an ID was required to use a SNAP card. I heard wrong; now I know, and will be sure to correct others. Thanks!

Unless I'm mistaken and you have other duties outside of investigating SNAP fraud, your job places you in a position where you only see the bad part of SNAP. A 2018 article from Forbes (which wasn't exactly sympathetic to the program as a whole) showed that the total funds allocated that were investigated for fraud accounted for less than 1% of the total funds allocated for the program in 2016. This doesn't mean that fraud isn't an important issue (there was a significant increase in fraud that brought it up to close to 1%, which is troubling), but it does mean that it's not as big of an issue as many claim it to be.

Since you are the expert here, I'd love your perspective: in your position, how often do you come across someone who would have been denied benefits under the ABAWD rules, but qualifies because your state waives the requirement? The USDA states that ABAWDs make up a little less than 9% of SNAP recipients, but that's nationwide, including both the states that waive the requirement and the ones that don't.

I don't solely do fraud but it's a big part of my job. I'd say there's about 50-75% of people who qualify due to the ABAWD requirements being waived. Tons of adult males living at home with mommy and not working by choice. They are allowed to state they "purchase and prepare" meals separately so that mommy's income doesn't count. You only have to be included with your parent if you are under 22.

I don't only work with SNAP, but it is the largest and most popular program. I also handle Medicaid, Medicare supplement plans and cash assistance programs for single adults and for families. The fraud takes away from those who truly need it and states like mine encourage the fraud. Our former governor stated that having residents on SNAP is helpful to the state's economy because it brings federal dollars to our grocery stores. That's disgraceful. Any good leader would promote self-sufficiency, but our state is bordering on bankruptcy thanks to Democrats and their sanctuary policies, so they'd rather suck up any Federal funding they can get.

How does fraud take away from those who need it? No one is denied benefits because someone else engaged in fraud, right? The only thing it does is tarnish the reputation of the program as a whole. And again, the amount of funds that are investigated for fraud is less that 1% of the total. It's really not something to get all up in arms about.

Man, why do you have such a hard time accepting the facts? Has all the blood left your brain through your bleeding heart?

Me or akeller?

Keller.

I thought that was pretty obvious.

I thought so too but just wanted to be sure, I had mentioned I used to be a bleeding heart liberal myself 😉

What facts am I not accepting?

The fact that urine idiot. And you'll always be one if you hold to a liberal worldview.

Nope. I'm ugly as f**k.

Aren't you adorable?

Ohhh, look a man who’s pissed he had to pay for the child he helped make made a meme lmao poor wittle feller.

:)

yeah i hate poor people too, let's how many women were REALLY abandoned by their boyfriend after they got pregnant or got divorced thatll show em