Skip to comments.Minn. Bill Would End Asset Test For Food Stamps
Posted on 03/17/2010 5:43:59 AM PDT by WOBBLY BOB
A Senate panel looks at legislation Tuesday that would allow more people to qualify for food stamps.
The bill from Democratic Sen. Linda Berglin of Minneapolis would repeal a requirement to show no more than $7,000 in assets such as cash, money in the bank and stocks to qualify for food support. Vehicles already are not counted.
(Excerpt) Read more at wcco.com ...
Have to say that I disagree.
Two workers, both making the same income.
You scrimped and saved before you got laid off? Well, no assistance until you deplete your savings and don’t have two dimes to rub together.
Meanwhile, the person who spends every dime he earns, gets assistance immediately.
Both paid the same taxes, both worked the same length of time. How is it fair that the person who saved and scrimped has to deplete their savings, before getting assistance?
Saving should include saving food. I’ve seen plenty of pimp daddies in section 8 driving $40k Escalades.
Why do we rarely see anyone rob a grocery store...of food?
You are correct. Scrap the entire program so as to not rob Peter to pay Paul, cuz that isn’t “fair”, either.
i took a 25% salary cut and my wife was laid off...i had plenty of money in a 401k and tried to take some out to make ends meet....i was told that i had to wait until we went into default on bills and then get letters of hardship from creditors in order to qualify to withdraw some of MY money to keep us from going into default...makes sense doesn’t it....don’t let someone help themselves with their own money, let them ruin their credit etc first....
Free! Let’s give everything to everyone for FREE! Yea...that’s the American way. Work is overrated. It is unhist that everybody does not have everything FREE!!!!!
Free! Let’s give everything to everyone for FREE! Yea...that’s the American way. Work is overrated. It is unjust that everybody does not have everything FREE!!!!!
It's not fair, not by a long shot. But the remedy is not to extend "assistance" to everyone. A return to a system primarily based on private charity would return both fairness and accountability to helping those in needs. As usual, Liberals outsource our basic human responsibilities to government, which then does an extremely poor job of being moral or even human.
Americans are highly generous, but also pragmatic. If Uncle Sam makes them "give at the office," and give and give and give, and creates a permanent underclass dependent upon Uncle Sam as the middleman for Americans' forced "charity," this unfair and unaccounted for forced "charity" impacts how private charitable efforts go.
If Americans "had" to help each other, because the guvmint kept the hell out of the way, you'd see very efficient and effective, targeted programs spring up in every locale to help those in need, especially right in those in those specific locales.
Even if people had to - gasp! - pay their own medical bills, first, costs would come way down. Second, if a family could not afford a certain treatment, I can guarantee fellow citizens would give if it were a worthy cause. Libs, though, have taken away not only most of our motivation to help others, but also the opportunity. It's often a fool's errand to pay more (on top of what Uncle Sam already confiscated from me) for "charity" when the guvmint wastes my "forced charitable giving" in the first place.
Frankly I am a bit surprised that with the DFL party hanging around Minnesota was able to pass any limits in the first place
I wonder why the gubermint doens’t change the IRS rules to allow penalty-free withdraws from 401ks/IRA during this “unexpected” recession?
Can you still get smokes with MN foodstamps? I know you used to be able to.
isn’t that irony?
Any government program that picks winners and losers is a dreates as many problems as it solves. Every government program that is charity disguised as subsidy is illegal. Taking money from a worker in Iowa at the point of a gun, and giving it to a non worker in New Jersey is just wrong.
maybe becasue our 401k’s are next on their hitlist....
Returning to a system primarily based on private charity also provides a great motivation to good citizenship. That's the thing about private charity. Yes, you can be a bum and still get fed in the church soup kitchen. Nothing wrong with that. The poor will be with us always and it's our obligation as humans to help.
But big-time, above the basic-call-of-duty community charity, especially because of how private fund-raising works, would end up going mostly to people who are at least trying to pull their own weight and not living so stupidly as to be causing their own most expensive problems.
You can readily see that a bake sale for leukemia treatments for a two-year-old will raise more money than a bake sale for new dentures for the town drunk who busted his chops, again, in a DUI that, BTW, killed the star high school quarterback.
Now some people will say THAT's not fair. So be it. Libs never think an asset-test OR a moral-test is fair. And it's not, literally, if it's the guvmint doing the giving. But private individuals can, do and SHOULD make such judgments. There would be charitable organizations that help people in all kinds of situations. But as a charitable giver, you would determine the types of situations your money addressed.
I agree with you. The food stamp program should be a safety net not life support. If they permitted families with more assets to be eligible for food stamps, then perhaps they could recover financially before the food stamp program becomes a necessity for life support. Of course you would have to limit the time they could remain on food stamps while still holding on to their assets.
By not counting vehicles they insure that all of those wishing to scam the system will place all of their assets in expensive vehicles.
It is an error to assume that food stamps are like welfare. How would you feel about food stamps if they both saved you money, and stabilized food prices? That is, food stamps matter on the *production* side as much as they do on the *consumption* side.
Even during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, one of America’s biggest problems was food over-production, while at the same time, people were starving. So the government destroyed a lot of food, and gave away a bunch more.
And the problem is still there. The government pays farmers to not grow food, pays markets to stabilize prices, and pays a lot to warehouse hundreds of tons of food until it rots. Billions of dollars every year for decades.
But if food is given away through food stamps, it immediately saves money and stabilizes prices. Ironically, since the best bargains with food stamps are with fresh food, they do not drive up the price of processed foods, which are more preferred by paying customers.
So why not?
I used to do maintenance at section 8 places years ago.
It never ceased to amaze what the ‘po folk’ were driving.
No Booze, Cigarettes, or Fancy Cars for Welfare Recipients in AZ
It never ceased to amaze what the po folk were driving.
When I see people dropping off their kids for "free breakfast" while driving new Mercedes and SUVs it does kinda irritate the crap out of me.
Kinda ! I see bright red every time and have to bite my tongue to keep from calling them out. "Hey you f'n parasite !"
Some people have no shame, and no pride either.
Are savings a right?
Can you help me understand? We’re you told you could not withdraw any money no matter what until you recieved those letters and such? Or, were you told that you would have to pay a penalty to withdraw funds without them?
Think of savings as being private property. Do you have the right to own private property?
Why don’t they have drug tests for food stamps?
Yup, just like your property. One could argue that savings and property are one and the same. If you can lay claim to my savings before giving me aide, then why can you not demand I sell my property before giving aide?
Meanwhile, those who foolishly spend every dime they have, get immediate aide. Does the parable of the Industrious Ant and the Grasshopper ring any bells?
No problem - I understand what you mean. My question goes to why someone would believe that their savings shouldn’t be utilized first before any type of assistance kicks in. While I disagree with the statement they are making, I agree with the logic. Maybe I misunderstood what was being suggested by the comment.
These idiots don’t understand that working people like myself who refuse to take food stamps are the only thing that keeps the system alive. Once that work ethic goes away culturally, the system will collapse.
What would you propose?
Lose your house, starve to death and try not to drop dead anywhere where your corpse will create a stink?
Consider, some people go to college, get a degree and over a lifetime acquire experiences that makes them valuable. They buy a nice home, drive a nice car and have manageable debt. Making 6 figures, they pay ~$30K/yr in taxes.
Now, their company outsources their job to India; or the company doesn’t make the profit that was hoped for, so the company lays off 1,200 employees. Through no fault of their own, they now have no income.
Are you better off paying a small sum to help them survive until they can find another job; or are you better off watching them lose everythign they own?
In places like Detroit; where unemployment is hitting 15%; can you imagine 15% of the houses in your community being foreclosed? What would that do to your property values? Those houses sit empty, the banks are stuck with the debts, and the houses eventually fall apart. Talk about economic devastation.
What do you propose?
In Minnesota, welfare recipients are allowed to keep some private property (not very much although I can't give you the exact number) and still draw aid. I'm not sure the rationale. Perhaps it has something to do with trying to eventually get off the aid, I don't know. It is very difficult for people on assistance to get off of it but some do. This is mostly due to the disincentives in the law.
i was told that i could not withdraw the money until i could show hardship via letters from creditors etc saying we were in default....the only other way i could get the money was to quit my job....
For the life of me I can't find "save me money" or "stabilize food prices" as an enumerated power of Congress anywhere in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.
Can you point them out to me? I must have an outdated copy.
Thanks in advance for all your assistance.
The feds actually made an effort with some things to maintain at least a veneer of State control. And while I agree it is not authorized as such, it is quite legal as a State and county activity.
But, as it were, it is just the tip of the iceberg, compared to the vast, albeit unconstitutional, federal involvement in agriculture and agribusiness. Which I might add, is so huge, that food stamps are piddly indeed. The scale of American agribusiness is paralleled only by our military industrial complex. Both of which are *everywhere* in the US. Truly amazing.
The principles of what I said, however, still apply at the State and county level, in that most of the States have an overabundance of food which puts a strain on their resources as well.
End it. End it now.
No asset test currently in WA State (The 2008 farm Bill/Act actually stipulated that asset tests were to end when considering SNAP eligibility in all states).
The way to do that is with a constitutional convention, which I have been advocating for some time, now. However, once it is done, food stamps and other “relief” will likely revert to State control. Looking considerably different than they did before the Great Depression, but still there.
I would propose creativity, flexibility, hard work and self-reliance. It’s the American way. Also, I would recommend throwing out all liberals from positions of authority, power or influence where ever possible.
All of these are great qualities to have, no question. However, none of these will put food in the fridge, pay utilties or put gas in the car so a person can drive to an interview.
Just think, you go to work one day and without warning, without cause and due to no lack of action on your part you are sent to a conference room where you see tens, hundreds or even thousands of your fellow employees all nervously walking around. You sit, the lights dim and a Sr. Executive tells you that you are now all unemployed, that you will get your last severance check on Friday, and that this action was taken for the 'best interests' of the company. "Thank you".
Maybe you just made a down payment on a new car, after all, things were going so well and the old car was getting undependable. You've been with the company 'x' years, and got a good raise. Why things were looking so good! Maybe you just bought a home, got married and planned to settle down and sink roots in your community. Maybe your wife just got out of the hosptial with huge medical bills. Maybe your wife came home crying last week because she had lost her job and you don't know how you will pay your mortgage without her income.
Unemployment Insurance when done correctly, provides you enough to survive. If you scrimp you can pay your utilities and eat. But there is no way you can pay utilities, buy food, pay your mortgage (or rent), make a car payment and go on a year long vacation.