The Trump admin is kicking 3.1 million people off SNAP

[pixy0stix]

www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/24/20707062/food-stamps-snap-trump-administration-sonny-perdue-agriculture

The rule cracks down on “broad-based categorical eligibility,” or BBCE, a policy that enables states to enroll people in food stamps (formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) if they’ve already applied for other benefits limited to low-income people, most notably Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The claim (which doesn’t have much basis in evidence) is that this provision is easy to game and keeps benefits from going to the neediest people.



That’s a lot of acronyms, but the basic point is this: The program that the administration is targeting helps needy people get access to food stamps more easily and quickly. Eliminating it will reduce access to benefits, to the tune of 3.1 million people, by the Trump administration’s own numbers.

[wildrice]

I read another article earlier this week that also mentioned they are going to be kicking people off if they have any assets, like savings, home, etc. I'm not sure if this article mentions that too (I didn't read since I've already read another article covering this topic this week). Basically, punishing people for somehow being able to save for an emergency or owning anything worth anything. This is such crap. It's nearly impossible to save anyway when you're poor, but if somehow you manage to do it... we should be encouraging people to be prepared for emergencies, not cut their benefits so that when the emergency comes, it destroys them.

Of all the things to cut in this country, we should not be cutting lifelines for poor people.

[kadams767]

Jul 26, 2019 13:42:43 GMT -5 wildrice said:

I read another article earlier this week that also mentioned they are going to be kicking people off if they have any assets, like savings, home, etc. I'm not sure if this article mentions that too (I didn't read since I've already read another article covering this topic this week). Basically, punishing people for somehow being able to save for an emergency or owning anything worth anything. This is such crap. It's nearly impossible to save anyway when you're poor, but if somehow you manage to do it... we should be encouraging people to be prepared for emergencies, not cut their benefits so that when the emergency comes, it destroys them.

Of all the things to cut in this country, we should not be cutting lifelines for poor people.

Great, now people can be hungry and homeless.  Just like God intended, am I right?  

[penguingrrl]

My god these people are fucking monsters. Letting people literally starve in the streets in a wealthy nation is unconscionable. Especially after having given rich people massive tax cuts.

[madDawg228]

These kind of policies hurt so many Republican voters, but they don't give a shit. As long as there isn't a Democrat in the White House, they seem happy.

I'm preaching to the choir, but I always wonder where their line will be. I assume their line is so far down, that they will have already lost so much, there will be no way back.

[agnes]

Oh no, I wonder how this will affect the recent CalFresh Expansion we've been trying to train/inform everyone about...

[WOT?*]

My son and I were butting heads (he was showing his ass) about how the program should be shifted/modified so that poor people can't buy skittles unless the government allows them to. "When I was on SNAP I was buying donuts instead of apples. That needs to be changed." Dude, not the point and you CHOSE to buy donuts; you knew apples were better. Now that it's his tax dollars at work and he's part of the hard-working-but-not-making-enough he's changing his tune about how his tax dollars should work.

And buying donuts is completely different from cutting benefits to 3.1 million people so Richie-riches can get their tax cuts.

I'm furious about all of this. :waves hands wildly

[ECB]

Jul 26, 2019 14:03:00 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

My god these people are fucking monsters. Letting people literally starve in the streets in a wealthy nation is unconscionable. Especially after having given rich people massive tax cuts.

this is what slays me. People worry about the small % of people who scam these programs, or they worry about their tax dollars to support these programs, but they aren’t bothered at all at millionaires who have more money than they’ll ever need being handed even more money (and lots of it).

But yeah, let’s be upset at a struggling single mom and the $126 of help she gets a month.

[seeyalater52]

Medicaid will be next. The ACA got rid of asset tests in Medicaid so it is in statute (meaning the administration can’t unilaterally do it like they can with SNAP) but if the ACA is overturned or repealed there we’ll be...

It’s sick. We want people to be able to save for their future and lift themselves up by the boot straps but then want people to go hungry unless they have no bootstraps.

[seeyalater52]

Also some states use SNAP eligibility as categorical for Medicaid so this will have trickle down effects into health care as well, making it more difficult for eligible people to access the benefits they are entitled to.

[ESF]

Further proof that fiscal conservatism is in this country is really just about finding ways to make white voters mad about who is getting what for free.

[bowies]

Jul 26, 2019 14:34:04 GMT -5 madDawg228 said:

These kind of policies hurt so many Republican voters, but they don't give a shit. As long as there isn't a Democrat in the White House, they seem happy.

I'm preaching to the choir, but I always wonder where their line will be. I assume their line is so far down, that they will have already lost so much, there will be no way back.

They’ll martyr themselves for their guns and rights over other people’s bodies. And they will do it happily because they get to go to heaven.

[biscoffcookies]

The sheer lack of empathy and compassion that this Administration and the GOP writ large and its supporters has is...I am legit having a hard time dealing with it. Between their approach to social safety nets, to their treatment of refugees fleeing horrible situations because they just didn't happen to be lucky enough to be born in the US, etc etc etc. If it were isolated people I could cope but instead it is huge swaths of America gleefully and self-righteously hurting others.

These days the knowledge that a big chunk of people out there including the people in charge are horrible seriously hovers in the back of my mind almost all the time to bad effect on my emotional state and outlook. What the hell is wrong with people.

[msmerymac]

It DOESN'T prevent people who need it from getting help, though. Its an entitlement program - it expands to help everyone who qualifies.

[seeyalater52]

Jul 26, 2019 20:33:16 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

It DOESN'T prevent people who need it from getting help, though. Its an entitlement program - it expands to help everyone who qualifies.

It’s only an entitlement (for now) because they haven’t succeeded in turning it into a block grant (yet.) Just a matter of time until they make another run for it and each new time I’m scared they’ll be successful.

[msmerymac]

Jul 26, 2019 16:19:05 GMT -5 seeyalater52 said:

Also some states use SNAP eligibility as categorical for Medicaid so this will have trickle down effects into health care as well, making it more difficult for eligible people to access the benefits they are entitled to.

And even more than that. I'm sure there are plenty of little benefits that you can take advantage of if you can prove you have need based on government eligibility. For example, the bike share system in Philadelphia has done a great job of bring accessible to communities that are usually left out of things like bike share (often seen as a sign of gentrification). If you have a PA ACCESS card, which means SNAP, TANF, Medicaid, and a few other programs, you out pay $5/month for the unlimited bike share program. Now, that's not a matter of life or death, but it certainly makes some people's lives easier. My food co-op also has an "accessible for all program" with a much smaller membership payment and biggest discounts for ACCESS card holders. It's essentially a shortcut to show that the government considers these people to be in need, so they qualify.

[livinitup]

HOW ELSE DO YOU EXPECT TO PAY FOR THE MASSIVE TAX CUT TO THE RICHEST 1% OF THE COUNTRY ??

[cville]

I just feel sick. I forgot all the ways there are to be soulless and horrid, but they keep reminding me.

[illgetthere]

From my understanding, SNAP already has an asset limit that excludes your primary residence. The thought is if you have more than a few thousand saved, you should have to use some savings before getting SNAP. The change eliminates automatic eligibility without the asset test.

Edit: and those that are on TANF for at least 6 months getting at least $50 would still automatically be eligible

[crystald528]

Per NBC News: Trump plan failed to note that it could jeopardize free school lunches for 500,000 children, Democrats say

"The proposal, however, did not include the USDA’s own estimate that more than 500,000 children would lose automatic eligibility for free school meals under the proposed change, according to Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., chair of the House Committee on Education and Labor."

www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-plan-failed-note-it-could-jeopardize-free-school-lunches-n1035281

[imojoebunny]

I am sick of people working full time, often more, and still needing to have government benefits. Let's full cost occupations and make the people who use them pay the fully loaded cost. I have lawn service for example. No chance that the person who does it, is able to pay full cost of living and health insurance, same for most of child care workers, cleaners, ect. Let us not create an underclass of slaves, which is what we are doing, by requiring people to have nothing, before they get any benefits. Essentially, the "merican dream" is dead, when the average working family of 4 cost $30K for health insurance, and brings in $60K. It is a false economy, that is a tax on regular people who work for companies that pay health insurance, or at least a decent wage that allows people to pay for it, in addition to food, rent, and transport.

[cuadrado]

Jul 26, 2019 13:37:35 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/7/24/20707062/food-stamps-snap-trump-administration-sonny-perdue-agriculture

The rule cracks down on “broad-based categorical eligibility,” or BBCE, a policy that enables states to enroll people in food stamps (formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP) if they’ve already applied for other benefits limited to low-income people, most notably Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The claim (which doesn’t have much basis in evidence) is that this provision is easy to game and keeps benefits from going to the neediest people.



That’s a lot of acronyms, but the basic point is this: The program that the administration is targeting helps needy people get access to food stamps more easily and quickly. Eliminating it will reduce access to benefits, to the tune of 3.1 million people, by the Trump administration’s own numbers.

In addition to how shitty this is, I would also be interested to see how much more money this ends up costing in public assistance labor for local employees. Having BBCE provides a HUGE relief to the organizations who have to process eligibility paperwork. 

[wildfloweragain]

The families of students in my class can already find it really difficult to fill out forms, because English is a new language for them.

When I can get them to fill out a form for one thing and it qualifies them for several others, it helps mitigate that a bit.

Having people jump through more hoops is going to mean more families don't get what they need, more children who won't be participating in some of the things they might qualify for for one of the programs. Right now I can get kids hooked up to the YMCA, to summer camp, museum passes, enriching life experiences...

It's not just having fun, either. Getting my students into these programs helps them with English, kids make friends and build social skills, gets teens connected to hobbies which is a big part of keeping teens out of trouble.

[notreal]

Jul 29, 2019 14:44:26 GMT -5 illgetthere said:

From my understanding, SNAP already has an asset limit that excludes your primary residence. The thought is if you have more than a few thousand saved, you should have to use some savings before getting SNAP. The change eliminates automatic eligibility without the asset test.

Edit: and those that are on TANF for at least 6 months getting at least $50 would still automatically be eligible

But this thinking hurts people, if you have any savings you can't get ahead. No saving for a new car, a new home, school tuitions.   And children with disabilities can have no sort of savings, so their parents can't plan for their future and still allow them to get the much needed aid for their care now.

[wildrice]

Jul 31, 2019 8:04:15 GMT -5 notreal said:

Jul 29, 2019 14:44:26 GMT -5 illgetthere said:

From my understanding, SNAP already has an asset limit that excludes your primary residence. The thought is if you have more than a few thousand saved, you should have to use some savings before getting SNAP. The change eliminates automatic eligibility without the asset test.

Edit: and those that are on TANF for at least 6 months getting at least $50 would still automatically be eligible

But this thinking hurts people, if you have any savings you can't get ahead. No saving for a new car, a new home, school tuitions.   And children with disabilities can have no sort of savings, so their parents can't plan for their future and still allow them to get the much needed aid for their care now.

And not even new stuff, but repairing the stuff you have. Or paying medical bills if someone has a major illness or injury, or has to take time off work to get healthy or care for a loved one. There are a million good reasons we should want people to have savings. Especially the long term poor. If I lose my job, it's probably fair to ask me to use my savings before applying for benefits, but I will eventually get another job that pays well enough to build up savings again. If someone is always going to be making a low wage and spends their savings, they may never get ahead. That's not right.

[illgetthere]

Jul 31, 2019 8:04:15 GMT -5 notreal said:

Jul 29, 2019 14:44:26 GMT -5 illgetthere said:

From my understanding, SNAP already has an asset limit that excludes your primary residence. The thought is if you have more than a few thousand saved, you should have to use some savings before getting SNAP. The change eliminates automatic eligibility without the asset test.

Edit: and those that are on TANF for at least 6 months getting at least $50 would still automatically be eligible

But this thinking hurts people, if you have any savings you can't get ahead. No saving for a new car, a new home, school tuitions.   And children with disabilities can have no sort of savings, so their parents can't plan for their future and still allow them to get the much needed aid for their care now.

I get it. Maybe the asset limits should be increased, but I do think they should be there. Otherwise, you have people like root of good with 2m saved and paying $20/month for subsidized healthcare.
People with disabilities can save in an able account that does not count towards asset limits.

[illgetthere]

Jul 31, 2019 9:44:20 GMT -5 wildrice said:

Jul 31, 2019 8:04:15 GMT -5 notreal said:

But this thinking hurts people, if you have any savings you can't get ahead. No saving for a new car, a new home, school tuitions.   And children with disabilities can have no sort of savings, so their parents can't plan for their future and still allow them to get the much needed aid for their care now.

And not even new stuff, but repairing the stuff you have. Or paying medical bills if someone has a major illness or injury, or has to take time off work to get healthy or care for a loved one. There are a million good reasons we should want people to have savings. Especially the long term poor. If I lose my job, it's probably fair to ask me to use my savings before applying for benefits, but I will eventually get another job that pays well enough to build up savings again. If someone is always going to be making a low wage and spends their savings, they may never get ahead. That's not right.

What do you propose then? Asset test for new applicants but no further restrictions once approved besides income?