User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 6789101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 112

Thread: Over 6 Million Americans Have Dropped Off Food Stamps Since Trump Took Office

  1. #91
    Points: 113,291, Level: 81
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 359
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    hanger4's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    221645
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mountains of WNC
    Posts
    43,200
    Points
    113,291
    Level
    81
    Thanks Given
    12,975
    Thanked 22,754x in 15,336 Posts
    Mentioned
    549 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    It's just not on the fake news media you read...and the answer to my question (that I already knew):

    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ion-households

    President Trump's proposal to the food stamp program would mean 1.7 million households, totaling 3.1 million people, will lose benefits that help them put food on the table. And on top of that, 500,000 kids will lose access to free school lunches.
    But as grim as these cuts may seem, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration also wants to bury those who remain eligible for food stamps in paperwork. These additional 17.2 million households will “undergo a more burdensome application process” according to the Congressional Research Service. The result: more red tape that means even more families will lose SNAP supports that have proven health and economic benefits.
    As it stands, if you qualify for other anti-poverty programs, state governments in 43 states can use data from those programs to make it far easier to enroll in SNAP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture wants to change this “categorical eligibility” rule to make enrolling in SNAP harder.
    This is no accident. In fact, it’s only the latest example of how the Trump administration is getting better at using administrative burdens as a backdoor means of policymaking. Having failed in Congress to cut SNAP, the Trump administration is betting that making the application process more dysfunctional will have the same effect.
    It’s a good bet. As we document in our book “Administrative Burdens,” relatively minor barriers like learning about new programmatic rules or completing additional paperwork strongly influence whether people sign up for benefits they really need. We are more likely to make mistakes or give up when we are lost in the paperwork maze.
    The outcome of more red tape is entirely predictable. Indeed, we need only look at past SNAP policy changes. Until Clinton-era welfare reform, SNAP benefits were automatically linked with other welfare payments. Welfare reform delinked the two. And as a result, the fraction of eligible recipients receiving benefits dropped from 75 percent in 1994 to 54 percent in 2001. That is equivalent to about 1 in 5 poor Americans in 2001 losing their benefits.
    But it goes far beyond just food stamps – the ripple effects of this policy change are large.
    When were these Trump proposals implemented ?? or have they been ??

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to hanger4 For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (09-15-2019)

  3. #92
    Points: 44,852, Level: 51
    Level completed: 77%, Points required for next Level: 398
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    VeteranTagger Second Class25000 Experience Points
    Reason10's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    13535
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,265
    Points
    44,852
    Level
    51
    Thanks Given
    8
    Thanked 4,527x in 2,866 Posts
    Mentioned
    134 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    It's just not on the fake news media you read...and the answer to my question (that I already knew):

    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ion-households

    President Trump's proposal to the food stamp program would mean 1.7 million households, totaling 3.1 million people, will lose benefits that help them put food on the table. And on top of that, 500,000 kids will lose access to free school lunches.
    But as grim as these cuts may seem, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration also wants to bury those who remain eligible for food stamps in paperwork. These additional 17.2 million households will “undergo a more burdensome application process” according to the Congressional Research Service. The result: more red tape that means even more families will lose SNAP supports that have proven health and economic benefits.
    As it stands, if you qualify for other anti-poverty programs, state governments in 43 states can use data from those programs to make it far easier to enroll in SNAP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture wants to change this “categorical eligibility” rule to make enrolling in SNAP harder.
    This is no accident. In fact, it’s only the latest example of how the Trump administration is getting better at using administrative burdens as a backdoor means of policymaking. Having failed in Congress to cut SNAP, the Trump administration is betting that making the application process more dysfunctional will have the same effect.
    It’s a good bet. As we document in our book “Administrative Burdens,” relatively minor barriers like learning about new programmatic rules or completing additional paperwork strongly influence whether people sign up for benefits they really need. We are more likely to make mistakes or give up when we are lost in the paperwork maze.
    The outcome of more red tape is entirely predictable. Indeed, we need only look at past SNAP policy changes. Until Clinton-era welfare reform, SNAP benefits were automatically linked with other welfare payments. Welfare reform delinked the two. And as a result, the fraction of eligible recipients receiving benefits dropped from 75 percent in 1994 to 54 percent in 2001. That is equivalent to about 1 in 5 poor Americans in 2001 losing their benefits.
    But it goes far beyond just food stamps – the ripple effects of this policy change are large.
    As soon as your OPINION article claimed that food stamps provided a large economic stimulus, it lost ALL credibility whatsoever.

    That's not even CLOSE to reality.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Reason10 For This Useful Post:

    stjames1_53 (09-15-2019)

  5. #93
    Points: 445,362, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 1.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience PointsOverdrive
    Common's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    339112
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    66,765
    Points
    445,362
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    8,785
    Thanked 18,315x in 10,924 Posts
    Mentioned
    396 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Our current economy is a Trump success, its exactly the opposite of everything Obama didnt do and the left wont give him an ounce of credit but he doesnt need them too working america knows it and so do the unions
    LETS GO BRANDON
    F Joe Biden

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Common For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-15-2019)

  7. #94
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,649
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason10 View Post
    As soon as your OPINION article claimed that food stamps provided a large economic stimulus, it lost ALL credibility whatsoever.

    That's not even CLOSE to reality.
    It doesn't. I don't remember the exact figure but it is something like 1:.62. Meaning one welfare dollar creates 62 cents of economic activity.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  8. #95
    Points: 56,917, Level: 58
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 1,433
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Agent Zero's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19619
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,002
    Points
    56,917
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    2,498
    Thanked 1,784x in 1,405 Posts
    Mentioned
    334 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Reason10 View Post
    As soon as your OPINION article claimed that food stamps provided a large economic stimulus, it lost ALL credibility whatsoever.

    That's not even CLOSE to reality.
    I'd be careful with denying everything you say is a "opinion article", Mr. I love Rush Limbaugh.
    How crazy alt righties got pwnd by a conervative web site:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlins.../#3b7ecb78e9b5
    il·lib·er·al
    i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəladjective1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior
    "illiberal and anti-democratic policies
    • synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary;


  9. #96
    Points: 56,917, Level: 58
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 1,433
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    Agent Zero's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    19619
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    8,002
    Points
    56,917
    Level
    58
    Thanks Given
    2,498
    Thanked 1,784x in 1,405 Posts
    Mentioned
    334 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Common View Post
    Our current economy is a Trump success, its exactly the opposite of everything Obama didnt do and the left wont give him an ounce of credit but he doesnt need them too working america knows it and so do the unions
    Ummm...the economy's tanking more and more as Trump's negating of Obama initiatives continues...
    How crazy alt righties got pwnd by a conervative web site:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlins.../#3b7ecb78e9b5
    il·lib·er·al
    i(l)ˈlib(ə)rəladjective1.opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior
    "illiberal and anti-democratic policies
    • synonyms: intolerant, narrow-minded, unenlightened, conservative, reactionary;


  10. #97
    Original Ranter
    Points: 858,904, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496517
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,649
    Points
    858,904
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,205
    Thanked 147,527x in 94,388 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    Ummm...the economy's tanking more and more as Trump's negating of Obama initiatives continues...
    The economy came back once Obama's hindrances on the economy were removed.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Peter1469 For This Useful Post:

    MisterVeritis (09-15-2019),stjames1_53 (09-15-2019)

  12. #98
    Points: 3,963, Level: 14
    Level completed: 83%, Points required for next Level: 87
    Overall activity: 0.1%
    Achievements:
    1000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Rooster's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    129
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Location
    North Florida
    Posts
    216
    Points
    3,963
    Level
    14
    Thanks Given
    228
    Thanked 119x in 74 Posts
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45 View Post
    Trump is starving babies by cutting off their food supply.
    Let's hope it's the babies with nine siblings.
    (Hi Nathan, nice to see you again...you haven't changed )

  13. #99
    Points: 113,291, Level: 81
    Level completed: 89%, Points required for next Level: 359
    Overall activity: 10.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    hanger4's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    221645
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mountains of WNC
    Posts
    43,200
    Points
    113,291
    Level
    81
    Thanks Given
    12,975
    Thanked 22,754x in 15,336 Posts
    Mentioned
    549 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    It's just not on the fake news media you read...and the answer to my question (that I already knew):

    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ion-households

    President Trump's proposal to the food stamp program would mean 1.7 million households, totaling 3.1 million people, will lose benefits that help them put food on the table. And on top of that, 500,000 kids will lose access to free school lunches.
    But as grim as these cuts may seem, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration also wants to bury those who remain eligible for food stamps in paperwork. These additional 17.2 million households will “undergo a more burdensome application process” according to the Congressional Research Service. The result: more red tape that means even more families will lose SNAP supports that have proven health and economic benefits.
    As it stands, if you qualify for other anti-poverty programs, state governments in 43 states can use data from those programs to make it far easier to enroll in SNAP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture wants to change this “categorical eligibility” rule to make enrolling in SNAP harder.
    This is no accident. In fact, it’s only the latest example of how the Trump administration is getting better at using administrative burdens as a backdoor means of policymaking. Having failed in Congress to cut SNAP, the Trump administration is betting that making the application process more dysfunctional will have the same effect.
    It’s a good bet. As we document in our book “Administrative Burdens,” relatively minor barriers like learning about new programmatic rules or completing additional paperwork strongly influence whether people sign up for benefits they really need. We are more likely to make mistakes or give up when we are lost in the paperwork maze.
    The outcome of more red tape is entirely predictable. Indeed, we need only look at past SNAP policy changes. Until Clinton-era welfare reform, SNAP benefits were automatically linked with other welfare payments. Welfare reform delinked the two. And as a result, the fraction of eligible recipients receiving benefits dropped from 75 percent in 1994 to 54 percent in 2001. That is equivalent to about 1 in 5 poor Americans in 2001 losing their benefits.
    But it goes far beyond just food stamps – the ripple effects of this policy change are large.
    When were these Trump proposals implemented @Agent Zero ??

  14. #100
    Points: 84,470, Level: 70
    Level completed: 85%, Points required for next Level: 380
    Overall activity: 43.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran50000 Experience Points
    testsubjectalpha's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    9011
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    29,329
    Points
    84,470
    Level
    70
    Thanks Given
    214
    Thanked 9,008x in 6,831 Posts
    Mentioned
    84 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My kid came home from school tonight. The entire clan went to Walmart buying up snacks one of the kids had food stamps to pay for because the parents gave them out them as an allowance of sorts.

    A classic Democrat move. Addressing cutting any waste, fraud, or abuse will result in a 6 month old baby dying. How can you Republicans be so heartless?

    Question Demcrats. Not only are unemployment rates among all demographics at their lowest in history but the number of people coming off the sidelines who gave up looking for work is surging. Yet the Democrats won't pass a spending bill unless the Gov't can borrow even more money than they ever have before.

    Our Gov't is spending the most money it ever has in it's history, every year is a new record for Gov't spending other people's money.







    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Zero View Post
    It's just not on the fake news media you read...and the answer to my question (that I already knew):

    https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...ion-households

    President Trump's proposal to the food stamp program would mean 1.7 million households, totaling 3.1 million people, will lose benefits that help them put food on the table. And on top of that, 500,000 kids will lose access to free school lunches.
    But as grim as these cuts may seem, they are just the tip of the iceberg. The Trump administration also wants to bury those who remain eligible for food stamps in paperwork. These additional 17.2 million households will “undergo a more burdensome application process” according to the Congressional Research Service. The result: more red tape that means even more families will lose SNAP supports that have proven health and economic benefits.
    As it stands, if you qualify for other anti-poverty programs, state governments in 43 states can use data from those programs to make it far easier to enroll in SNAP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture wants to change this “categorical eligibility” rule to make enrolling in SNAP harder.
    This is no accident. In fact, it’s only the latest example of how the Trump administration is getting better at using administrative burdens as a backdoor means of policymaking. Having failed in Congress to cut SNAP, the Trump administration is betting that making the application process more dysfunctional will have the same effect.
    It’s a good bet. As we document in our book “Administrative Burdens,” relatively minor barriers like learning about new programmatic rules or completing additional paperwork strongly influence whether people sign up for benefits they really need. We are more likely to make mistakes or give up when we are lost in the paperwork maze.
    The outcome of more red tape is entirely predictable. Indeed, we need only look at past SNAP policy changes. Until Clinton-era welfare reform, SNAP benefits were automatically linked with other welfare payments. Welfare reform delinked the two. And as a result, the fraction of eligible recipients receiving benefits dropped from 75 percent in 1994 to 54 percent in 2001. That is equivalent to about 1 in 5 poor Americans in 2001 losing their benefits.
    But it goes far beyond just food stamps – the ripple effects of this policy change are large.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts