Oregonians Not Going Hungry
#41
(09-06-2013, 02:11 PM)csrowan Wrote: Educate yourself.
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-h...ities.aspx#


A few snippets:

SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.

The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal.

I'm not sure I'm believing your link, or maybe it doesn't apply to Oregon or something. Here's a snippet of what I did find, which sounds more authoritative than your link: http://oregonhunger.org/applying-for-snap

Eligibility Requirements

"Many Oregonians are surprised to find out they are eligible for SNAP. Eligibility is based mostly on monthly income. That includes earned income from work, as well as unearned income such as social security, disability, child support and more. For most Oregonians, resources such as a house, car or money in the bank do NOT count against eligibility. You may be able to get SNAP if you are working, receiving unemployment, or attending school."
Reply
#42
(09-06-2013, 03:06 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:44 PM)csrowan Wrote: Is he unemployed and cheating the system?

Or is he part time? Self employed?

What evidence do you have that he is able-bodied? I'm assuming you've seen him put in at least 4 hours of work in his yard without a break? Or do you think that being able to mow a lawn makes you able-bodied?

Yes he is unemployed. No he is not cheating the system.



I know him very well. I've known him for years. At this point he is not able bodied but he always has been and always was when he went in to get re qualified for snap benefits.

He is not on disability and never has been. He has no drivers license, there is no bus service to where he lives so I assume they just give him a break and renew his benefits.

Anyway your "snippet" is simply not true.

So he is not able bodied now, and the snippet refers to existing rules. I don't know what the rules were in the past when he went to get renewed. I don't know what he put on the forms you have to fill out.

And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

The fact that he is not able bodied now is irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it. He recently went in to get recertified . He has to do that every six months He has always been able bodied and and has had NO job whatsoever for the last two years.
He receives 200 a month NOW based on "existing rules" because he has zero income. I don't know what you think he could have put on the forms to perpetually receive the maximum Food stamp benefit?


Quote: And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

What?? you supplied info that says Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.


I know for a fact that isn't always true so YES your snippet is not true in all cases.
Reply
#43
(09-06-2013, 04:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 03:06 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:44 PM)csrowan Wrote: Is he unemployed and cheating the system?

Or is he part time? Self employed?

What evidence do you have that he is able-bodied? I'm assuming you've seen him put in at least 4 hours of work in his yard without a break? Or do you think that being able to mow a lawn makes you able-bodied?

Yes he is unemployed. No he is not cheating the system.



I know him very well. I've known him for years. At this point he is not able bodied but he always has been and always was when he went in to get re qualified for snap benefits.

He is not on disability and never has been. He has no drivers license, there is no bus service to where he lives so I assume they just give him a break and renew his benefits.

Anyway your "snippet" is simply not true.

So he is not able bodied now, and the snippet refers to existing rules. I don't know what the rules were in the past when he went to get renewed. I don't know what he put on the forms you have to fill out.

And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

The fact that he is not able bodied now is irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it. He recent went in to get re certified . He has to do that every six months He has always been able bodied and and has had NO job whatsoever for the last two years.
he receive 200 a month NOW based on "existing rules"


Quote: And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

What?? you supplied info that says Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.


I know for a fact that isn't always true so YES your snippet is not true in all cases.

Sorry. I took your "simply not true" to mean "categorically untrue", not "untrue for at least one instance".

And I still have no proof that he's not lying on his forms.
Reply
#44
(09-06-2013, 03:44 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:11 PM)csrowan Wrote: Educate yourself.
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-h...ities.aspx#


A few snippets:

SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.

The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal.

I'm not sure I'm believing your link, or maybe it doesn't apply to Oregon or something. Here's a snippet of what I did find, which sounds more authoritative than your link: http://oregonhunger.org/applying-for-snap

Eligibility Requirements

"Many Oregonians are surprised to find out they are eligible for SNAP. Eligibility is based mostly on monthly income. That includes earned income from work, as well as unearned income such as social security, disability, child support and more. For most Oregonians, resources such as a house, car or money in the bank do NOT count against eligibility. You may be able to get SNAP if you are working, receiving unemployment, or attending school."

You might find this interesting then. It gets into more detail about work, unemployment, and work programs:

https://apps.state.or.us/cf1/EligManual/...+ID=06-toc
Reply
#45
(09-06-2013, 04:15 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 03:44 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:11 PM)csrowan Wrote: Educate yourself.
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-h...ities.aspx#


A few snippets:

SNAP already has strict time-limits for unemployed workers. Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.

The SNAP benefit formula is structured to provide a strong work incentive – for every additional dollar a SNAP participant earns, their benefits decline by about 24 to 36 cents, not a full dollar, so participants have a strong incentive to find work, work longer hours, or seek better-paying employment.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.

The national rate of food stamp trafficking declined from about 3.8 cents per dollar of benefits redeemed in 1993 to about 1.3 cent per dollar during the years 2009 to 2011.

The average monthly SNAP benefit per person is $133.85, or less than $1.50 per person, per meal.

I'm not sure I'm believing your link, or maybe it doesn't apply to Oregon or something. Here's a snippet of what I did find, which sounds more authoritative than your link: http://oregonhunger.org/applying-for-snap

Eligibility Requirements

"Many Oregonians are surprised to find out they are eligible for SNAP. Eligibility is based mostly on monthly income. That includes earned income from work, as well as unearned income such as social security, disability, child support and more. For most Oregonians, resources such as a house, car or money in the bank do NOT count against eligibility. You may be able to get SNAP if you are working, receiving unemployment, or attending school."

You might find this interesting then. It gets into more detail about work, unemployment, and work programs:

https://apps.state.or.us/cf1/EligManual/...+ID=06-toc

Perhaps it's a matter of recertification or redetermination?

I don't claim to know, I've never collected foodstamps in my life, but I also know many people who seemingly have been on foodstamps for years. But it's not considered socially polite to go up to your friends and ask them how they keep on the continuous gravy train for years, you know what I mean? Smiling
Reply
#46
(09-06-2013, 04:13 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 03:06 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:59 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:44 PM)csrowan Wrote: Is he unemployed and cheating the system?

Or is he part time? Self employed?

What evidence do you have that he is able-bodied? I'm assuming you've seen him put in at least 4 hours of work in his yard without a break? Or do you think that being able to mow a lawn makes you able-bodied?

Yes he is unemployed. No he is not cheating the system.



I know him very well. I've known him for years. At this point he is not able bodied but he always has been and always was when he went in to get re qualified for snap benefits.

He is not on disability and never has been. He has no drivers license, there is no bus service to where he lives so I assume they just give him a break and renew his benefits.

Anyway your "snippet" is simply not true.

So he is not able bodied now, and the snippet refers to existing rules. I don't know what the rules were in the past when he went to get renewed. I don't know what he put on the forms you have to fill out.

And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

The fact that he is not able bodied now is irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it. He recent went in to get re certified . He has to do that every six months He has always been able bodied and and has had NO job whatsoever for the last two years.
he receive 200 a month NOW based on "existing rules"


Quote: And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

What?? you supplied info that says Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.


I know for a fact that isn't always true so YES your snippet is not true in all cases.

Sorry. I took your "simply not true" to mean "categorically untrue", not "untrue for at least one instance".

And I still have no proof that he's not lying on his forms.

I'm not understanding what it is you think he is lying about? Do you think people who apply for benefits can simply say they are not able bodied and can't work with no proof whatsoever?
Reply
#47
(09-06-2013, 04:27 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:13 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 03:06 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 02:59 PM)tvguy Wrote: Yes he is unemployed. No he is not cheating the system.



I know him very well. I've known him for years. At this point he is not able bodied but he always has been and always was when he went in to get re qualified for snap benefits.

He is not on disability and never has been. He has no drivers license, there is no bus service to where he lives so I assume they just give him a break and renew his benefits.

Anyway your "snippet" is simply not true.

So he is not able bodied now, and the snippet refers to existing rules. I don't know what the rules were in the past when he went to get renewed. I don't know what he put on the forms you have to fill out.

And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

The fact that he is not able bodied now is irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it. He recent went in to get re certified . He has to do that every six months He has always been able bodied and and has had NO job whatsoever for the last two years.
he receive 200 a month NOW based on "existing rules"


Quote: And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

What?? you supplied info that says Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.


I know for a fact that isn't always true so YES your snippet is not true in all cases.

Sorry. I took your "simply not true" to mean "categorically untrue", not "untrue for at least one instance".

And I still have no proof that he's not lying on his forms.

I'm not understanding what it is you think he is lying about? Do you think people who apply for benefits can simply say they are not able bodied and can't work with no proof whatsoever?

I'm not saying that I think he's lying. I'm saying that if everything you say about him is true, and if the information I posted is true (and I have more faith in that information than I have in what you think you know about him), then there's something weird going on.

Alternatively, he qualifies under some other aspect that wasn't addressed, or he lies, or when he was able bodied, the rules were different, or something else entirely.

But since I've come across multiple references (including one from the state of Oregon) that talk about needing to work or be in work training or participate in a work program, I'm going to stick with the notion that an able bodied person can't just stay unemployed for the fun of it and collect food stamps under the current regulations, unless they actively work at it.
Reply
#48
(09-06-2013, 04:34 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:27 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:13 PM)csrowan Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 04:04 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-06-2013, 03:06 PM)csrowan Wrote: So he is not able bodied now, and the snippet refers to existing rules. I don't know what the rules were in the past when he went to get renewed. I don't know what he put on the forms you have to fill out.

And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

The fact that he is not able bodied now is irrelevant and I shouldn't have mentioned it. He recent went in to get re certified . He has to do that every six months He has always been able bodied and and has had NO job whatsoever for the last two years.
he receive 200 a month NOW based on "existing rules"


Quote: And a single anecdotal exception, if that's what it really is, does not make the snippet untrue. It means that there is at least one exception.

What?? you supplied info that says Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.


I know for a fact that isn't always true so YES your snippet is not true in all cases.

Sorry. I took your "simply not true" to mean "categorically untrue", not "untrue for at least one instance".

And I still have no proof that he's not lying on his forms.

I'm not understanding what it is you think he is lying about? Do you think people who apply for benefits can simply say they are not able bodied and can't work with no proof whatsoever?

I'm not saying that I think he's lying. I'm saying that if everything you say about him is true, and if the information I posted is true (and I have more faith in that information than I have in what you think you know about him), then there's something weird going on.

Alternatively, he qualifies under some other aspect that wasn't addressed, or he lies, or when he was able bodied, the rules were different, or something else entirely.

I think a lot of discretion is given to whom ever it is that you deal with when you apply OR when you re apply.

First you say I'm not saying that I think he's lying



Then you say...Alternatively, he qualifies under some other aspect that wasn't addressed, or he lies,


Or he lies? About what? I asked you what you think he lied about and if you think they just take your word for it if you say you can't work. Your response was saying you didn't think he was lying? huh?

Quote: Roawan...
But since I've come across multiple references (including one from the state of Oregon) that talk about needing to work or be in work training or participate in a work program, I'm going to stick with the notion that an able bodied person can't just stay unemployed for the fun of it and collect food stamps under the current regulations, unless they actively work at it.

This guy has NO transportation. There are no buses where he lives. He CAN'T get to any of the work training places.
So they don't deny his benefits. That's what I think is going on because I know he doesn't lie and there isn't any trick up his sleeve.
Reply
#49
You say "I'm not understanding what it is you think he is lying about?"

I say "I'm not saying that I think he's lying."

There's a very simple linguistic thing here that you're missing. "I'm not saying I think he's lying" does not mean "I don't think he's lying." I have no clue whether he's lying or not. I don't know what he would lie about if he were lying.



So, my point is that I have every reason to believe that there are rules about working for able bodied individuals (based on evidence from multiple sources). I have almost no reason to believe anything you say about this man (which is different from disbelieving, by the way), as it is just hearsay. So when you tell me "simply not true", I'm not convinced.
Reply
#50
(09-06-2013, 05:12 PM)csrowan Wrote: You say "I'm not understanding what it is you think he is lying about?"

I say "I'm not saying that I think he's lying."

There's a very simple linguistic thing here that you're missing. "I'm not saying I think he's lying" does not mean "I don't think he's lying." I have no clue whether he's lying or not. I don't know what he would lie about if he were lying.



So, my point is that I have every reason to believe that there are rules about working for able bodied individuals (based on evidence from multiple sources). I have almost no reason to believe anything you say about this man (which is different from disbelieving, by the way), as it is just hearsay. So when you tell me "simply not true", I'm not convinced.

You talk in riddles. Listen to Ponder, He apparently also knows people who have been getting food stamps since the dawn of time who have nothing wrong with them.

I have mentioned the fact that this person I know has nothing wrong with him and has been getting Snap for a long time. I have mentioned it BEFORE you made this claim.
I don't have any reason to lie.

I think this.... Able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) may only receive 3 months of SNAP benefits during any 3 year period, unless they are working in a qualifying job training program.
is something they WANT the public to believe or wishful thinking but like I said it's simply not true. I just got off the phone with another friend who gets full food stamp benefits. He just renewed his mooch card over the phoneLaughing
He took the qualifying job training program years ago and hasn't done it since.
Reply
#51
Didn't you know the rules of the "gimme" crowd are always enforced? There is no way for people to cheat the system. Rules are in place to prevent that.
Reply
#52
rainbow rex airs?
Reply
#53
Babble crap all the time?
Reply
#54
... so we're narrowing it down. Kirbys?
Reply
#55
(09-06-2013, 08:18 PM)bbqboy Wrote: rainbow rex airs?

Laughing Laughing Laughing
Reply
#56
Robert Reich
While attention is focused on Syria, food stamps for the nation’s poor are about to be cut. So are funds for low-income housing. And although jobs are slowly returning, the median wage continues to drop, adjusted for inflation. At the same time, both income and wealth continue to become more concentrated at the very top. A single income of one of the ten richest Americans could buy housing for every homeless person in the United States for an entire year. (Based on a typical day last winter, when over 633,000 people were homeless, and the typical monthly rental cost of a unit with single room occupancy of $558 per month.) The 400 richest Americans have more wealth than the bottom 150 million put together. But we are not talking about any of this. We are not debating about what’s happening to our nation. We are not raising the minimum wage or reforming our tax code or fixing our schools or getting big money out of politics. We are paralyzed at home, and now turning our attention to a potential quagmire abroad. This is the great tragedy of our time.
Like · · Share · 6,5226795,585 · 14 hours ago near Berkeley, CA ·
Reply
#57
If the government gave out self respect and a good work ethics, no one would take it. The lazy moochers are too used to their free cheese, stupid mice.
Reply
#58
boring. you need to step your game up . 3rd time's the charm.
Reply
#59
(09-07-2013, 06:03 AM)bbqboy Wrote: boring. you need to step your game up . 3rd time's the charm.

Yeah baby, I got game. I can give you some if your out.Smiling
Reply
#60
nope. Bad juju. I don't want to be infected with whatever you got. Terminal, I'm afraid.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)