What's a guy to do? There is a young man where I work, who between he and his gf, have 4 children. I've seen him make less than responsible choices with his money and life. Yes, I know it's my opinion, but one oustanding example would be buying a motorcycle with his tax refund (remember they have 4 children between them) last year while having 1 undependable car.

Recently, he was so happy he got a $600 phone for $150. He had a phone. He still has the 4 kids in the household. They get snap and more, etc. Unbelievable to me.

You can offer up your own experiences, you can flame me, you can judge me by telling me I am judging, you can justify, you can (maybe) wonder along with me how we got to this point as an entitlement mentality society.

dl

btw, snap (at least here ) is a more current term for food stamps. I take it as an image enhancing tool so the recipients feel better about the program. I haven't heard the word welfare in a long time. It's grants, community action, etc.

dl

No comment other than...

SNAP cracks me up.

Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program

My SO's niece has two young children---and yes, she receives assistance.
But, here's the part that upsets me: part of her assistance is because her children have been labeled "disabled"--and the people who labeled this children benefit from labeling the children disabled! And those people have convinced the mom that she should not be working, because the kids "need" so much "help".

I agree that the kids may have some "issues", but disabled? Nah!

I guess what I'm trying to say is: The system is flawed==from the top down.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

That is one of the reasons they are on SNAP because they make poor choices with their money. It's sad. I've often thought that part of the assistance for receiving govt benefits is to have budget and nutrition counseling.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Not knowing how much money was spent for the motorcycle, here are my thoughts.
I would guess that SNAP doesn't know about the motorcycle. A household is not allowed to have certain assets and still be able to receive SNAP.
I remember many, many years ago a local man was protesting the requirements for receiving food stamps. The man had a dependable, not new car. However, he was expected to sell the car for an older, less dependable car in order to receive food assistance. Has everything to do with assets.

I don't know enough about that particular guy to judge him. But assuming that he is buying luxuries for himself, instead of necessities for his family, then it sounds like the like the kids would go hungry without SNAP.

Should kids go hungry because they have parents with poor money mangement skills?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Sadly there are so many people whom do not take being a parent or mom or dad seriously and who suffers the kids very sad. I have always felt with any type of assistance if truly needed and used in the correct way then okay, but when abused it is all wrong and sadly there are more people whom can really benefit and do not use it or abuse it.. Catherine

Not anymore! When Obama came into office those old requirements were changed. My oldest is a Food Stamp Worker here in Oklahoma and the workers were livid when the law went into effect. No assets are looked at anymore, people can own multiple houses, multiple cars, new cars, olds cars, savings accounts, assets are NOT looked at anymore. Only your current income.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Also, the law was changed for single able bodied males, they used to be able to collect Food Stamps for 3 months, now there is no limit on length of times on being able to collect. That was changed at the same time as the other.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

I'm glad the law changed. I never thought it was fair that because you owned a decent home and car, you could not get any assistance if you fell upon hard times.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

That's why people should have an emergency fund - so if they fall on hard times they can still eat.

Yes, now they can own their own home, mutiple rent homes, several cars, have thousands or even millions in the bank and if they lose their job and don't have an income they are entitled to collect Food Stamps for as long as they want to and do it legally.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

According to what? That's not what I see here:

Eligibility


Are you just making up stuff?!

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

If memory serves, Penny actually works in this field as her vocation, so she would know...

Then she should be able to provide the details. I'd like to see them, because it doesn't match the info I'm finding. For instance:

Licensed vehicles are NOT counted if they are:
used for income-producing purposes,
annually producing income consistent with their fair market value,
needed for long distance travel for work (other than daily commute),
used as the home,
needed to transport a physically disabled household member,
needed to carry most of the household's fuel or water, or
if the household has little equity in the vehicle (because of money owed on the vehicle, it would bring no more than $1,500 if sold).

For all other vehicles, the fair market value over $4,650 or the equity value, whichever is more, is counted:
one per adult household member, and
any other vehicle a household member under 18 drives to work, school, job training, or to look for work.

For all other vehicles, the fair market value over $4,650 or the equity value, whichever is more, is counted as a resource.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

The law changed in June of 2009 for Food Stamps after Obama came into office. You no longer have to report assets for Food Stamps.

My oldest daughter is a Food Stamp Worker. I do not work for DHS, I used to work for DHS as a Social Worker, and investigated Child Abuse and Neglect (Child Protective Services) but I no longer do that.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Please provide a link to substantiation. I see many asset restrictions in the Eligibility requirements. In fact, I started to fill out an eligibility form to see for myself. One of the first questions is about assets. That's in Massachusetts. Maybe it's different in Oklahoma or wherever your daughter is a food stamp worker. (If that's the case, then there's s a state-by-state difference, for which you can't blame Obama.)

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

In its 2009 State Options Report, FNS identified 42 states that have embraced categorical eligibility using either
“traditional” or “broad-based” options. In its December 2009 “Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility Chart,” FNS identified
27 states and two territories that have elected this option. These include 20 states using the TANF funded brochure,
web-based information or a hotline to trigger categorical eligibility; 24 states have totally eliminated the asset test; and
19 states have a substantially higher gross income test.
Under the categorical eligibility option, states can especially help more working families and newly jobless by:

• Eliminating the asset test. By providing a TANFfunded
benefit, states can simply eliminate the
SNAP/Food Stamp asset test for most households.
This option allows states to shorten the application
forms, reduce verifications, reduce data matches on
assets and reduce the state’s exposure to quality
control errors. Low-income SNAP/Food Stamp
applicants tend not to have any meaningful assets in
any event. For the relatively few struggling families
that do still have assets above the assets test
(which has been basically unchanged for 30 years)
removal of the asset test can be particularly helpful
for the newly jobless and can ease the verification
demands and case processing for both state
agencies and households alike.

• Using a higher gross income test. States that
provide a TANF-funded benefit to households with
gross income below 200 percent of the federal
poverty level (FPL) can use this same 200 percent
FRAC | Smart Choices in Hard Times | 4

http://www.aec.msu.edu/fs2/promisam_...oices_2010.pdf

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Here is a letter from the State of California, there is more, but I just put the first paragraph where it states they no longer have to look at assets (they use the term resource information) for Food Stamps.

REASON FOR THIS TRANSMITTAL
[X] State Law Change
[ ] Federal Law or Regulation
Change
[ ] Court Order
[ ] Clarification Requested by
One or More Counties
[ ] Initiated by CDSS

May 27, 2009

ALL COUNTY LETTER NO. 09-24

TO: ALL COUNTY WELFARE DIRECTORS

ALL FOOD STAMP PROGRAM COORDINATORS
ALL CalWORKs PROGRAM SPECIALISTS
ALL CONSORTIUM PROJECT MANAGERS
ALL QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM COORDINATORS

SUBJECT: MODIFIED CATEGORICAL ELIGIBILITY FOR THE FOOD
STAMP PROGRAM; QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

REFERENCE: ASSEMBLY BILL (AB) NO. 433, Chapter 625, Statutes of 2008

The purpose of this All County Letter (ACL) is to transmit implementing instructions and
questions and answers (Qs&As) to County Welfare Departments (CWDs) regarding
modified categorical eligibility (MCE) for the Food Stamp Program (FSP). This change
is expected to increase participation in the FSP in California, particularly among working
poor families; and it may reduce the workload and case processing time for CWDs
because workers will no longer need to act on resource information for MCE
households(HH), as the resource information will not impact FSP eligibility under MCE.

http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/lettersno...2009/09-24.pdf

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Interesting, Penny.

The 2nd one you posted - the California info - notes that it is a state change, rather than a federal change.

Is this a situation where the state is acting up on the encouragement of the federal government based on the federal publication you linked above?

This is an interesting site, it explains what each state allows. 42 states use the ECE (Expanded Categorical Eligibility).

The alternative rules used have allowed 39 States to exclude the value of all vehicles entirely. Of the remaining 14 States, 11 totally exclude the value of at least one vehicle per household. The other 3 exempt an amount higher than the SNAP’s standard auto exemption (currently set at $4,650) from the fair market value to determine the countable resource value of a vehicle.

ECE for SNAP benefits is advantageous for simplifying eligibility determination by eliminating the requirement for valuation of vehicles and other assets, and the application of the resource test.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/rules/M...te_Options.pdf

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

That's pretty harsh. Some people do not have the extra income to set aside for that. I won't go round and round with the one. There are too many exceptions.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

I disagree.

You specifically mentioned people with decent homes and cars.

You didn't specify poor people. You specified what sounded like an economic demographic that was 'solid' who experienced a rough patch.

Someone in a position to buy a good car and a good house needs to also save for emergencies. It's the responsible thing to do.

Even people that have a home and a car might not have extra to save and could have had an emergency that wiped out any savings they might have had. I know people that have lived this.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

ita that personal responsibility should be evident. The guy already had a phone, and yet coudln't put the money toward food or bills to catch up or be ahead. I actually talked to him last year about how he could get ahead with the tax return and be able to do several other things. And, yes, he was openly discussing this at lunch about his pending motorcycle purchase.

I remember when the commissary started accepting credit cards. I could not bring myself to buy FOOD on my credit card (even though I did and still do pay off monthly). It just wasn't right. Over the years, I realized I should because of the rewards and now I put virtuallyeverything on the card to max it.

It is distressing to me reading here that the requirements have been lessened. Recently the paper had a front page story on food banks and snap and "encouraged" people to take advantage of what there was. The words encourage and advantage were used. It was almost begging people to take and take and take !

It used to be the in thing to have things upon top of things like everyone else. Now it's the in thing to cry poor like eveyrone else, whether you are or not.

As for feeling sorry for the children, I certainly get that. However, they are being used as a shield by the parents to take and take and then the kids learn this way of life. We can't keep giving and giving like we are. snap, like anything else, should be limited timewise so people don't become dependent and expect it.

In the depression, people found ways to survive and take care of themselves- and they wanted to. Now, they can't even roll out of bed and expect someone else to take care of them because they don't want to do anything. It is rampant and it is distressing.

Thank you for a fair discussion and the info....

dl

Again - you indicated that the assets they had purchased were solid.

It's kind of like going out to eat. If you can't afford the tip, you need to go to a less expensive restaurant.

If you can't afford to buy House A and Car A *and* responsibly save towards an emergency fund in case you fall on hard times, then you can't afford to buy House A and Car A. You need to buy House B and Car B and put money in savings and then upgrade to "A" status when you have prepared for hard times.

It's the responsible thing to do.

ETA: Does "Jamestown" ring a bell? Preparation for hard times = Important

I do not see where that statement is harsh at all. You are correct, "some" don't have enough to set aside. I believe that many do, they simply choose not to. In my example starting this thread, he obviously had $150 he could have set aside. However, he didn't see it that way.

Part of my frustration is that people DO have money, they just don't act responsibly or think responsibly that they should put it aside, or use it to catch up on bills, or even get ahead. The young man is no further ahead and he will continue to get snap. Shoot. Why should he or anyone else on welfare assitance put anything aside or think about it when their needs are being taken care of?

dl

Sorry, we will never agree on this. I had a friend....they had a modest home and car. They had a pretty nice savings. She got cancer and it wiped out any money they had. I am glad she did not have to stress about getting rid of her home for her children and her car she needed for the many doctors visits in order to eat. There are many more situations like hers. I am glad you are not one of them.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

This is the exception. Your friend was being responsible. The health situation was not something she could control. Exception.

You are dwelling on a single instance. The discussion is about making less than positive choices, living life on the welfare dole, not planning, expecting to be taken care of, etc. It is talking about a drain on our taxpayers due to a way of life being perpetuated. Not one instance lamented about uncontrollable circumstances.

dl

groovy, please take my statements in the context of this thread.

The original post was about a man who has four mouths to feed yet who spends windfall money on toys like motorcycles and new cell phones.

That's someone who has *chosen* hard times.

The original poster was frustrated that one could be so irresponsible and yet be financially supported, food-wise, by the taxpayers.

Someone who has seen similar abuse lamented that it recently became even easier for individuals such as motorcycle cell dude to mooch off the system rather than using the tax refund to feed his family.

You said you thought it was a good thing that the guidelines had been broadened so when people fall on hard times even if they have nice stuff, they won't have to give up anything in the meantime.

A cancer diagnosis is a far cry from where this thread began - with an irresponsible parent who uses his money to buy toys rather than food for his family.

The man described in the original post is more than skating on thin ice financially because he has chosen a life of irresponsibility.

Your friend with a cancer diagnosis who used up her savings obviously was being responsible and it sounds due to no fault of her own she faced unforeseeable tragedy.

If you can't see that it is crazy that they would *both* have identical access to assistance then you're right, we will never agree.

I agree that many people take advantage. It is not a single situation, though. There are many more like hers. She is gone now, but many more are here. I know this thread was about the others, I was just answering to wow...because she sounded as if she was saying there is never an excuse to not have a savings.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

No - I wasn't making a blanket statement.

I was talking about people who had had access to resources sufficient enough to allow them to buy a nice house and a nice car who 'fell on hard times'.

When I think of falling on hard times, I think of someone who hit a bump in the road and lost a job, had a paycut, had an injury that took them out of the job force short term, etc.. Those things can happen to anyone at any time. That's why it is so important to have a plan for what you will do if something like that strikes in your life, especially if you have some resources at your disposal.

I was re-reading Suze Orman's Nine Steps to Financial Freedom last week, and she makes a good point when she says that our 'needs' grow to fill the level of our income. She says someone making $1,000 / month and barely getting by will feel like if they only had $2,000 / month, they would be set for life. Once their income rises to $2,000, most likely they will spend to that level rather than continuing to live on $1,000 for awhile and saving the extra $1,000... or even living on $1,500 and saving $500 / month for a year. That would give them a $6,000 emergency fund and they could still have given their standard of living a $500 bump in the meantime.

What you described with your friend's cancer is much more, to me, anyway, than simply 'falling on hard times'. Her situation was life-impacting devastation.

All it means is that instead of counting asset by asset, they determine if you fall into a certain category. By definition, the category would indicate that you are "needy." And, under some conditions, even if you fit the category, you don't get benefits:

Categorical Eligibility Questions and Answers and Changes in Policy

Question: Some categorically eligible households are not entitled to benefits because of their net income. Can a State agency now deny the application of such a household?

Answer: A State agency may now deny an application of an otherwise categorically eligible household with three or more members if the household’s net income exceeds the maximum income eligibility level. This option does not apply to 2-member households that are entitled to a $10 minimum benefit. The change is the result of an amendment that was included in the rule issued November 21, 2000. Alternatively, the State agency may hold the application in a pending status.

It's quite a bit more complicated than you make it out to be.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Here is from the Mass website, most households don't have an asset limit anymore, only the elderly and disabled.

SNAP Food Stamps: Financial Eligibility


Which households have an asset limit?
Assets are the cash, savings, and valuable things you own that you can use to pay for food and other things you need. Most households no longer have an asset limit for the SNAP food stamp program. The asset test has been eliminated in most cases.

The only households that have an asset limit for SNAP food stamps are:

Households where a member is disqualified due to:

an intentional program violation (IPV)
failure to comply with the SNAP Food Stamp Work Program requirements
failure to comply with TAFDC monthly reporting requirements
Senior or disabled households with income greater than 200% of the Federal Poverty Guidelines

See FS Income Eligibility Standards - 200% FPG for dollar amounts.
Senior household = household with one or more members age 60 or older
Disabled household = household with one or more members with disabilities

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

It always goes by income. But in the past it also has included your other assets to include homes, rental property, vehicles, boats, Rv's, savings accounts, etc. that type thing.

The thing that bothers me, is that now it doesn't take that into account. Now it doesn't bother me that people own a home, or one or two cars.

What bothers me is that technically someone could be working, own a home, own several rental properties, own a boat, own several vehicles, have money in savings and then lose their job and qualify for Food Stamps. They then have no income, so they would meet the income requirements, and there is no longer any asset reporting. To me these items should be sold (I don't mean the home they live in or the cars they drive) I mean all the extra stuff before the government starts supporting them. Use their assets to live on first.

I don't have a problem with people using Food Stamps that really need them. I am the Director (volunteer) of my towns Food Bank, I don't have a problem with people eating. I don't like the added potential for abuse the way it is set up now.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

And again, it's just my opinion on the asset thing. We own 4 vehicles, I would be selling a couple of vehicles, having some yard sales, selling some stuff on Ebay, doing everything possible BEFORE I went down to apply for Food Stamps or free lunch for my kid or any type of help from the government. I've always worked since I was 16 years old and worked my way through college I've just never been on any public assistance and I would be using it as a last resort. I was on unemployment for a couple of months when I got laid off once.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

I agree, Penny. I'd cut our standard of living significantly before I'd seek government help.

That's not to say that there is shame in needing help... but I do think there is shame in having a net worth significant enough that if you liquidated some of it, you could put food on your own table, yet *not* liquidating and putting our already-debt-laden nation on the hook for your basic needs.

Personally for us we have always believed in saving for a rainy day, now I do realize not everyone can safe for a rainy day, some can save alot while others can only afford to put minimal amount in savings each week or month or however they can. I also realize that even people who have saved for a rainy day a severe problem or occurance can happen and wipes out their savings. With all that being said I have always believed in the aspect of living within your means, and also to say away from credit cards. We of course have one to use to emergencies or to book a vacation, or a airline flight. However if you do not have the money today, how will you have the money tomorrow. Now back to op if you have children to support, to feed, to put a roof over their heads, provide health care then you cannot be irresponsible and spend the much needed money for items that you cannot well afford. Finally as stated before any kind of assistance while I think it is a wonderful thing for people who truly need it and can truly use it, for people who abuse any form of assistance makes it harder on those who truly need it. Again not really knowing this person personally, if you cannot afford to provide for the children , then items that he purchased were not necessary and totally wrong.. Catherine

No, there is definately no shame in getting assistance IF you need it.

Pride can be a bad thing too, I once did a Child Neglect investigation where the baby had died because the family was too proud to get WIC and Food Stamps and the baby had starved to death. The family was poor, and homeless, no assets at all, they could have easily qualified for alot of assistance.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

The households must meet TAFDC requirements, for which there is an asset limit. It just means that if you qualify for TAFDC, you automatically qualify for SNAP:


You must have a dependent child or be pregnant to qualify for TAFDC, and you must have little income and few assets. In addition, some families have to meet special work and school requirements. You must live in Massachusetts and be a U.S. citizen or eligible noncitizen.

Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children (TAFDC)

Your original statement, that basically you can have unlimited assets and qualify, is just plain wrong.


__________________

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Surely, you realize that those of us who are sick to death of "spongers" who know how to work the system are NOT talking about people like your friend, so we're tired of hearing of the OCCASIONAL anecdotal exceptions.

My daughter is a corporate recruiter so I know for a fact that MOST of the people she interviews are absolutely not interested in a job -- they'd much rather sponge off the rest of us

I'm tired of hearing of the OCCASIONAL anecdotes that describe spongers and unsubstantiated reports of spongers from friends of friends and relatives.

And I'm really sick to death of posts that include partial facts to try to substantiate an invalid claim. For instance, ones that claim you can have unlimited assets and still qualify for SNAP.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

To Kellyjef, are you not truly assuming alot here by that comment you just made, concerning your daughter and that most people are truly not interested in finding a job, I honestly think that is being way too critical and lumping all different people, with all different problems into the same category, how truly can your daughter truly know what is going on in their personal lives to know for a fact, they only want assistance and not employment... Can you kindly be more specific in your daughters findings or any proof to back up that statement, thanks so much. Catherine

I wouldn't accuse her of being 'too critical'. That seems to me to be doing to her the very thing you are accusing her of doing to the people she interviews.

I can't speak for KellyJef or her daughter (I've never met them - lol), but there are a number of reasons one might be able to come to those conclusions after interviewing someone. An acquaintance of mine was downsized out of a job post-9/11. She had worked in the aircraft manufacturing industry, and she had some federal unemployment benefit that kicked in after her package from her former company ran out.

She had to prove she was actively seeking employment to continue to be eligible for her unemployment benefits. She really didn't want to go back to work, so she only sought employment for things like being a WalMart greeter, grocery store checker, etc., and put down her previous job's salary as her desired salary. And of course WalMart and the grocery store didn't hire her because those jobs didn't pay $40K / year + benefits like her previous job had.

They were never serious applications on her part - she was strategizing so she could keep her unemployment benefits for as long as she possibly could, and her 'potential new employers' were onto her.

Notice - I called her an acquaintance, not a 'friend'. We get along okay, but it was hard for me to respect her enough to really call her a friend when I saw her doing things like that.

It's tax time again so maybe my guy will soon tell what he plans to do with this year's return. Since he has the motorcycle, wonderful new cell phone, and a few other "toys" I can hardly wait to see what it might be. What a life being on snap, having child care assitance, free breakfast and reduced lunches for his kids, medical, etc while I pay my own money for everything I need. Not want, need!

dl

This is what we call an anecdote.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

You and all of your friends? We?

It's factual. And it's rampant the mindset of being able to get and not be responsible.

dl

To wow, it was Kellyjef who made the comment about her daughter not me, how am I being critical I do not even know the people to whom she interviews. I am on the side of being againist people who are well capable of working and choose not to, to get a easy ride so to speak, very againist that, however without truly knowing the person personally, or what toys they may have at home, example, cell phones, computers, fancy wide screen televisions, or really expensive cars, how would a person who is doing the interview know all these things and be judgemental. Once again it is a failed system, because all too many people dearly abuse it, when it really should go to the sick and disabled or unwed moms who need a little help to get by, until they can stand on their own feet, and provide for their families in the correct manner, instead of the abuse and buy extra clothes or jewelry or irresponsible items they could use without, instead better to better provide for their families, so especially when it comes to food and basic necessary items. I guess you could say you cannot judge a book by its cover... unless the person being interviewed is wearing expensive clothing and using a expensive handbag and openly admits I am really not interested in working right now, I rather get some help and abuse the system. Interesting topic for sure and sadly not spoken enough, because so much neglact and abuse of the any form of assistance happens so rampart. Catherine

Lucy, you said this to KellyJef regarding her daughter:

I didn't see where she did that. I just meant that you were being critical of KJ's daughter when you accused her of being way too critical and lumping people into one category.

Neither of us knows what goes on in her daughter's workplace, so I don't think it is fair to accuse of her of being 'way too critical'. She's told her mother that she encounters a lot of people who come in for interviews that don't really seem all that interested in actually getting the job for which they are applying. She didn't say anything about cell phones or big screen tv's that I know of. You are jumping to conclusions about how KJ's daughter came to *her* conclusions about them.

To wow, did you not see where KJ mentions her daughter and she herself KJ says I know for a fact, that most come in not really looking for work???. Did I miss something here how does KJ know for a fact without really knowing these people. I also realize that KJ did not mention alot of the items I mentioned, I was merely trying to point out, that there are tons of people who abuse the system, while they fill their homes with all these toys.. Is not a fact suppossed to be true , then how can either KJ or her know the truth???. Just wondering and again I am againist any form of abuse of any type of assistance . Catherine

[quote=ILUVLUCY420;3457909]To wow, it was Kellyjef who made the comment about her daughter not me, how am I being critical I do not even know the people to whom she interviews. I am on the side of being againist people who are well capable of working and choose not to, to get a easy ride so to speak, very againist that, however without truly knowing the person personally, or what toys they may have at home, example, cell phones, computers, fancy wide screen televisions, or really expensive cars, how would a person who is doing the interview know all these things and be judgemental. Once again it is a failed system, because all too many people dearly abuse it, when it really should go to the sick and disabled or unwed moms who need a little help to get by, until they can stand on their own feet, and provide for their families in the correct manner, instead of the abuse and buy extra clothes or jewelry or irresponsible items they could use without, instead better to better provide for their families, so especially when it comes to food and basic necessary items. I guess you could say you cannot judge a book by its cover... unless the person being interviewed is wearing expensive clothing and using a expensive handbag and openly admits I am really not interested in working right now, I rather get some help and abuse the system. Interesting topic for sure and sadly not spoken enough, because so much neglact and abuse of the any form of assistance happens so rampart. Catherine[/QUOTE

You and I agree on much - except I have to respectfully disagree about the unwed moms who need a little help to get by. There is a father(s) out there somewhere and the mom knew what she was doing. She is most likely unwed for a reason, as in my guy's situation. There is more to be gotten by being single. I cannot give a free pass to an unwed mom and am very tired of those who use that battle cry when it's their choice.

dl

All I can add to the conversation is that I am a small business owner and it is almost impossible for me to find employees. All I ask is a clean background check and drug test, which I pay for, and verifiable references. I pay more than $2.50 an hour over the minimum wage, and either people will not return my calls, will not report to work, or simply say they're not interested. Of the ones who are interested, they either fail the background check or drug test, or I can't get their references to return my calls. And my county has a 10% unemployment rate.

KJ was reporting to us that which her daughter encounters in the workplace.

You quickly accused her daughter of being too critical because she couldn't know the facts about those people.

She absolutely very well *could* know that they aren't that interested in working. MariahB just explained what happens when she herself tries to hire people who have applied. The follow-through is bad, etc. It doesn't sound like they are being ambitious in trying to secure employment with her... which sounds like they aren't all that interested in working, which is exactly what KJ's daughter reported to her mom that she encounters.

Why accuse KJ's daughter of being critical? Isn't that... being critical about her daughter before you give her a chance to explain how she came to the conclusion she did?

It's the one bad apple that ruins it for everyone.

Out of 100 work comp claims that I handle I will have 1 or 2 that just DO NOT want to return to work. I have 2 right now--one who actually told his doctor that he didn't want to work, just wanted to live off of disability, food stamps and whatever else assistance he could get. Another one who refused to return to work after being released to light duty---but yet his physical therapy notes indicates that he fell off the roof of a friend's house while putting on a new roof!!

But, those are the exception, and not the rule. It frustrates me. It irritates me. It actually makes me a little angry at times--it's the "abusers" of the system, those who manipulate the system and/or those who just would rather be lazy that makes it harder for those who truly need help! Obviously, it's not just the work comp system, it's "welfare", food stamps, etc.

And it's always the bad apples that get the most press or attention.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

I understand what you are saying, marilyn, but I do think that there are a lot of abuses where... well, let me backtrack on that and start over.

I don't know that it is so much that there are *abuses* of things like free lunch in that lots of people lie so they can qualify.

What I do think is that the guidelines are broader than they need to be.

There are a lot of things people seem to think are part of life's baseline that are actually 'wants' and not 'needs'. Cell phones are an easy target because... well, they are easy. lol.

I understand that cell phones have become commonplace and that people feel like they 'need' them in today's world. I don't know about prices where others live, but I'll give you the figures based on my location....and I'll use a family of four for the sake of this discussion.

A basic landline with no bells or whistles like caller ID can be had for $28/month.

The cheapest Verizon plan in our area is $44 for one cell, or $69 + $10/month per phone for a family plan. And a family of four will not only have the base plan plus four phones ($99 + taxes and fees), but they will also have the family texting plan ($22, I think) because "we really need it - that is how we keep in touch!"

So they have a phone bill of over $130 by the time taxes and fees are added in.

That's $100 worth of telecommunications that is not necessary.

Just because you make good use of something doesn't mean you *need* it.

Another easy target is fast food. We think fast food is inexpensive, but even fast food is much more expensive than a healthy meal at home.

From my understanding, when people here in our school system, for example, apply for reduced lunches, nobody checks up on the declarations they make. Based on income, my family would have qualified, but to me that is insane - we own our vehicles and our home (no debt on any of those things), have no credit card debt or any other consumer debt at all, and we have a comfortable amount in savings. None of those things are taken into account for reduced or free school lunches, though. I don't *need* that freebie for my kids, but we are *eligible*. To me, that's crazy.

I don't like that they just base whether someone gets taxpayer-funded freebies without sitting down with the recipients and seeing if there is waste in their budget. Are they eating half their meals at McD's? What's up with their cell phone status? Do they have deluxe cable?

Some always yell, "You can't judge people about those things!!!!!!"... but I think that is short-sighted. If a family is going to request help in feeding themselves based on the fact that they don't have enough money to do it themselves, and yet they *do* have money that they are using for other things... I'm not okay with that.

And that sort of thing does happen all the time.

They're not out and out breaking the rules, because the 'rules' don't require that recipients share their budget with someone who determines whether or not they are wasting money.

But I know of a number of kids in my children's classes who have had their own phones since they were in 4th grade who were also on reduced lunches.

I'm not asking that others do anything we don't do ourselves. We rarely eat out. And we have pre-paid plans through PagePlus for our cells ($2.50/month). And... we can pay for our kids meals and aren't asking taxpayers to do it.

*That's* the sort of 'abuse' I see, and I think the issue is that the system just doesn't require much of anything but an income statement before they make a determination as to whether families qualify. The income alone doesn't show the whole picture, IMHO.

Deddlastt believe me I understand where you are coming from, when the subject arises to unwed moms and underage moms who are no way near capable of providing the proper care whether financially, emotionally or physically, I also agree that we as hardworking taxpayers, should not have to take care of them, they know the deal, they fully know what they were doing when they choose to have irresponsible sex, which could result in a unwanted pregnancy. As I have always told my three children, if you decide to engage in adult suituations be prepared for the adult consquences sp??. With all that being said I think there should be some type of help for them, but not forever and they also should be held responsible and if that means like perhaps the father of the child, if he has to work 3 jobs around the clock to support the life he created, then he should. Heck and I hate to curse, I am not saying put the mom and baby on the street but again your the parent, you made your bed , now you must lie in it. I have watched a few times 16 and pregnant and it totally amazes me, more then half the parents are willing to help their children with the babies, but they are so disrespectful and then decide this is not for me , I want to go out and party, sorry it is too late. Honestly in these cases adoptions should be more of a key issue here, where at least the baby is placed in a hopefully loving home, to which responsible adults can provide 100 percent for the baby... Catherine

To wow okay will give KJ the chance to explain how her daughter came to the conculsion that most of the people who she interviews would rather not work. I did not mean to be critical , however I am interested to know. Catherine

Me, my friends, my enemies, and the dictionary. An anecdote can be a fact, but it's still an anecdote. Calling something rampant doesn't make it so.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I get it...
And I agree. The system is flawed. The way the system is ran now, it almost begs for people to "abuse" the system. The checks and balances just aren't there.

Then add in people who are less than motivated, or have the sense of entitlement that seems to be so rampant these days....and well, it just makes for an ugly situation.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

""Some always yell, "You can't judge people about those things!!!!!!"... but I think that is short-sighted. If a family is going to request help in feeding themselves based on the fact that they don't have enough money to do it themselves, and yet they *do* have money that they are using for other things... I'm not okay with that""

My daughter knows a girl from band who owns a $2,500 dollar flute and takes private music lessons. Yet, she gets free lunches at school. I don't understand that mentality. And this girl is learning first hand that if you get someone else to pay for your essentials, you'll have more money for other things.

At one of the grocery stores I shop, on the first on the month, you absolutely cannot find a parking place. I quickly learned that was the date welfare recipients got their money in their account. Funny thing, most of the cars in the parking lot are nicer than mine. Just not right.


****I am really out of the loop here. I thought SNAP was a kind of phone.

__________________
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!

You "spoke for KellyJef" perfectly - LOL. The situation with your acquaintance is exactly what my DD has experienced with most of the people she interviews. They are so bold that they actually come right out and admit to her that the only reason they showed up for the interview is because they had to prove that they were actively seeking employment in order to continue receiving their checks.

To Kellyjef I have a name it is Catherine and you know it and please do not compare me to the people your daughter deals with, and while we are on the subject, you know for a fact all your answers to me will be the same, rude always because you know me from the other coupon wesbite, so stop trying to pretend your a goodie girl, trouble maker. Literally all these posts after all these years and you still will not give it a break. Well it ends here KJ and I stand firm there is no way to know for a "true fact" either by you or your daughter, what is really going on in the people to whom she interviews. Omg how I sincerely wish someone else besides you KJ made those comments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Catherine the person Wow was talking too.

OMG! You need to breathe and read what Kelly wrote.
She was saying that WoW had summed it up perfectly.
She wasn't responding to you, comparing you to anybody or anything.

I think you're little rant against Kelly shows who the real trouble maker is. She wasn't rude to you. She didn't say anything to you or about you--yet YOU are the one ranting and raving and showing your a$$!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

OKay Marilyn so now I am a A$$$ very nice come back, from the other trouble maker on the board you do not know the history between me and KJ, she belongs to another coupon site and her hatred and dislike for me stems from there and that is a plain fact. You should mind your own business Marilyn before you speak and call someone a A$$$. Just proves my point over and over, here is a hot debated thread and its the same ladies. Again you do not know the facts, at best, she KJ in all the past threads concerning me has never once said something nice and as always been againist me. Lets see if she has the nerve to come back and admit how much she hates me or dislikes me and it all stems from the other board, where she is friendly with other ladies. Edited to say your the A$$$ it is 2011 and I literally have had enough of your B>>>>>>>>>>>> Catherine

I couldn't care less that you(we?) are tired of hearing it. I am tired of hearing people like you act like you are better than others, yet you still get to post it and I get to post the defense for people like my friend.

__________________
"When you're drowning, you don't say 'I would be incredibly pleased if someone would have the foresight to notice me drowning and come and help me,' you just scream."

John Lennon

Welfare was orginally set up as short term solution to those who found themselves unemployeed. It was NEVER supposed to be used long term...just long enough to get families past a rough patch. The problem is that too many people have used welfare as a way of life. Generations have managed to work the system and never even attempt to look for a job. It has become to easy to stay at home, sit on your butt....and expect the government to take care of your family. Whatever happen to personal responsiblity? The system is flawed. I have no problem with helping those whe really need the help, but I am getting so tired of struggling to survive....while others take no responsibilty for their own lives.

No, it's not wrong. To qualify for snap they don't check assets, they ONLY CHECK INCOME. They only check assets for those other programs (and for people who have had problems in the past that what the list is). Income and assets are not the same thing. All programs go by the amount of income you make (even Food Stamps), but you can still have OTHER assets for Food Stamps but NOT for the other programs, ONLY for Food Stamps.

I am just wondering if you are confusing income with assets, I am not using them in the same way, to me they are two different things.

TDAFC is Transitional Aid to families with Dependent Children, yes you have to have a certain income to qualify for that, if you qualify for that program then you automatically qualify for Food Stamps. But if you go in and JUST apply for FOOD STAMPS then you don't have to show assets, not everyone is on TDAFC, most people are just on Food stamps. It's 2 different programs, you can be on one and not the other.

Sorry, I did not get back sooner, my 15 year old had her wisdom teeth pulled yesterday.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Huge difference between showing your a$$, and being an a$$.

And if you are too stupid or too ignorant to know that, then I certainly am not going to explain it to you.

But, I never once saw Kelly direct anything towards you--negative or otherwise.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Marilyn you will not get the best of me anymore, that was left in 2010, in case you did not realize it is now 2011. As far as knowing I am a A$$$$ that is your view and typical of you and your rudeness and to admitting your a b......... I take it from the source... As far as the relationship between me and Kj you must have had on blinders all these past years, again take it from me, who knows the truth. She knows me from another coupon site and her hatred stems from there. And any chance she is given like the one about all my grammar issues, she was so worried about the children I work with, her fears for these children, give me a break, I know the truth about KJ and her feelings towards me. Sorry Marilyn I know you like to think your right all the time and know it all, but this time your dead wrong. End of discussion I am still waiting for KJ to come here and explain her side. Catherine

Exactly! Once you get on it, it's too easy just to stay on it. I actually had clients tell me before it didn't pay them to work. It was better for them to stay on AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependant Children) that is when you have children and get a money payment and Food Stamps (which is just for food) most would also qualify for subsidized housing and pay $10-$25 a month in rent, plus if you get Food Stamps you automatically qualify for free lunch. Then every so often you can also get energy assistance to help with your electric or gas bill. For someone to go out and get a $7.25 an hour job, they would lose all their aid (except maybe Food Stamps) they could get day care assistance, but they would actually be making less by working and they would be working 40 hours a week.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

I must have missed something here???? I read all the posts and KellyJeff was responding to WOW unless my reading comprehension is as bad as MY spelling and grammar. Can anyone explain what it matters that KJ "supposedly" hate ILL from another board has to do with anything when she was not only not spoken to in that post, she was not even '"referred" to?

To saw, I gave KJ plenty of chances in this thread to please explain how she knew for a fact that most the people her dd interviews do not want to seek employment, but rather reap the benefits of assistance abuse. Then finally wowitsdark decided to speak for KJ, godforbid KJ would answer me. Now brings to the part, when KJ finally decided to answer, she answered to Wow not me, in her statement , she refers to me as Wow's acquaintance. She knows 100 percent my name is Catherine and could have said that, but no she did not. She then went forward to say that I am the exactly the same people to whom her dd has experience with most of the people to whom she interviews. Well last time I checked I was not interviewed by KJ dd, I work full-time no reaping or abusing the system here I love to work. Perhaps now this will all be cleared up. She could not even fathom the thought to pronouce to write my name and she knows my name is Catherine. Lord knows I have signed it a 10.000 times... Catherine

Unless I am reading it wrong, KJ was responding to WOW's post #45, which she copied into her post and as such had NOTHING to do with you/

KJ was not referring to you when she referenced wow's acquaintance. She was referring to the friend/acquaintance that wow had told about in her post.

I have no idea what goes on at the other site......but I think maybe you are being a tad sensitive.

__________________
Melissa

Catherine,

Please go re-read my post where I discussed the person I know who did not want a job. I describe this person's situation - she had worked at an airplane manufacturing plant in Kansas. After 9/11, she was downsized out of her job and given a nice severance package. It included, if memory serves, 12 months of 90% of her pay or something pretty generous like that. Because of some special benefits afforded by the federal government to people from that industry who became unemployed due to the 9/11 downturn, *after* her company's severance ran out, she was eligible for *federal* unemployment payments for a year.

The catch with the federal payments was that after six months, she had to provide paperwork showing that she was actively seeking a job in order to stay on the federal unemployment 'payroll'.

At that point, she had been out of the workforce for 18 months - twelve on her former employer's severance package, and six on federal unemployment pay. She really didn't want to go back into the workforce until she had used all eligibility for federal unemployment - she was staying home with her two boys and enjoying it! Her husband had a full time job and they didn't really even *need* her income, but she didn't want to leave any 'free' money on the table.

So... she applied at places like WalMart and at grocery stores for positions like checkers, baggers, etc.

The applications at those places ask things like, "What was your previous salary at your most recent job?" and "Do you need a similar salary from the job you are applying for today?"

She had made $40K + benefits at her airline-connected job.

She KNEW that working at WalMart would NOT pay $40K/year plus bennies.

She knew bag girls at the supermarket do not make $40K plus bennies.

In other words... she chose to ONLY apply for jobs she knew she would NOT get because she said she needed $40K and those jobs did NOT pay $40K.

When WalMart or the grocery stores would say, "Thanks for applying. Unfortunately, the pay you could earn here does not meet your income needs, so we are unable to offer you a job," she would smile and say, "Okay, I understand - and can you sign off on my unemployment forms saying that I did at least try to get a job with you?"

She had to provide the unemployment agency PROOF that she was applying for jobs in order for them to keep sending her unemployment checks.

Now... please re-read my post where I said I could not speak for KJ, but I had an acquaintance....and then I told the story that I just told again in this post.

And I ended that post by saying that I considered her an acquaintance rather than a friend, because after hearing how she was working the system, I really lost all respect for her.


This is what KellyJef's post in response to MY post said:

I have no awareness of the bad blood between you and KJ elsewhere on the web, but in this case, I think you have unfairly jumped the gun and assumed she was talking about you. Her post was ENTIRELY referring to ME and MY post and the acquaintance *I* have who does exactly what her daughter sees happen.

*sigh* I never called you an ass....
And you seem to think that I find it offensive to be a b*tch, or be called a b*tch?? Not even! Most people who find me to be a b*tch is because I speak my mind, I speak it eloquently (usually), and can provide proof to show that they are wrong/are lying.
B*tch is not a bad thing in my book.

I don't think I know it all, I don't think I'm right all the time. I'm constantly learning.

And you're right, it is 2011. Why don't you try living in 2011, instead of all the years that KellyJef "hates" you? Why don't you let it go?

KellyJef did explain herself--she agreed with what WoW said. There really isn't any further explanation than that.

Nobody but you brought up your spelling/writing "style". No one but you brought up your job working w/ kids. We were having a relatively civil conversation, with folks disagreeing on things. But no one was getting too snarky--until you got your panties all in a bunch!

Build a bridge and get over it ILL! Geez...

Peace out, dude!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Exactly.

KJ says, "My daughter sees...."

ILL says, "KJ, how can your daughter KNOW that about those people?"

WOW says, "I can't speak for KJ, but I know one way employers can know that about people because an acquaintance of mine..."

KJ says, "WOW, you apparently *can* speak for me, because the situation you describe with your acquaintance is exactly what I was going to describe."

And ILL says, "KJ, how dare you not answer me and how dare you refer to me in code as an 'acquaintance' and say I don't have a job???"

I... don't get it.

to ill, it's all about woe is her. She accuses many of being a troublemaker, and yet it's typically her. She is the only person here who can use the word truly in a run on sentence four times and be ultra nice to those whom she deems "friendly". Be her pal and then respond to her favorably and you get thanked out the yahoo. She will post just to say thank you to her pals! She likes the word sincerely also, however, obviously doesn't know the meaning and/or can't apply it properly.

It's ok for her to bring the war into numerous posts where it isn't appropriate, but for no one else to meander anywhere on a small scale. Matter of fact, exactly what you read here, she trumped up all on her own, while blaming wow and kj. She constantly tells us what to post and what not to post. Maybe she actually owns mc and has that right?

ill is a complex, yet simple person all tightly wound into a single being. Over and over, it's all about her.

dl

You are absolutely right: I was NOT referring to Catherine in my post -- I was referring to the person WOW had spoken about. Catherine is so paranoid that she thinks everything is about her

As far as Catherine challenging me to have the "nerve to come back and admit how much she hates me or dislikes me and it all stems from the other board, where she is friendly with other ladies", she is right: I do dislike her -- not only because of what I know about her from the "other board" but also because of the stuff she posts on THIS board.

I have made a conscious decision to try to avoid responding to her posts.

So Penny, am I understanding this correctly??

Say... 100 people applied for SNAP.

Twenty of them had already been approved for TDFAC. The guidelines for TDFAC are more stringent than SNAP, so the SNAP people say to those twenty TDFAC people, "Hey - if you qualified for TDFAC, you obviously meet OUR requirements as well, since theirs are even tougher than ours. We consider you all pre-qualified. Do not pass go - go straight to the line to get your SNAP card."

....

"And the other 80 of you... I need you to fill in this income form. If your income is low enough, you will qualify for SNAP, too."

Did I get that right?

Finally KJ admits the truth, so now you now the truth how she feels about me and the feeling is mutual. What goes on, on the other board from where KJ knows me is the same BS that goes here. KJ hopefully will admit to that fact, its a click of the same ladies who totally dominate the board and anyone else who tries to get in their way, or will disagree with them, like I do here gets the same treatment. And no it is not me, feel sorry for me, I never did nor never will need of the ladies in this thread to feel sorry for me. The problem here is I can take it and dish it out the same as all of you can. As far as calling me ILL that is so overplayed and childish and you know it, you all know my name is Catherine or you can simply refer to me as Lucy. But no way you play your little games and call me ILL, funny, not!!. If any of you ladies care to notice, there are plenty of well known other members here on the board, yet known of them came into this troubled thread???, why because they are not trouble makers like you ladies and are. I came in to speak my 2 cents but again it always turns the post into a problem with Catherine. Answer why has no one else popular here come into this thread, because they do not seek trouble and can leave it alone and not always pick on me. I will say this to Wowitsdark I SINCERElY, and I know what the word means and I mean it when I write it, do not mean to lump you into a catergory as a troublemaker you are not at all, it is mean't sooooooooo much for Deddlastt, KJ and last but not least Marilyn... On a final note as stated before I could care less if you want to continue about my grammar, you know what I am writing and if you do not like it, well then that is your problem. Catherine

What a silly statement

You act as if I have pretended to like you all along and now I have admitted that I do not like you.

Catherine, from my perspective, ILL has never been anything but your username initials.

KJ = Kelly Jef
ILL = I Love Lucy
MK = Marilyn K
WOW = Wow Its Dark
DL = Dedd Last
MOM = Momarajum
GG (or Groovy) = Groovy Girl

Seriously - it never occurred to me that anyone was using it as a slam.

Correct:

TDFAC is what used to be know as welfare payments, money payments to those who have children and are not working. They have no income to qualify for TDFAC, if you get TDFAC then you automatically get SNAP (Food Stamps) if you get Food Stamps then you also automatically qualify for free school lunches. In order to qualify for TDFAC they do look at whether you own property, vehicles, have a savings account, etc. they do look at income and assets to qualify for TDFAC.

SNAP (Food Stamps) is a totally seperate program. It is to be used to buy food. You do have to qualify by income in order to get it, but they no longer look at whether you own property, vehicles, have a savings account or any other assets. This is what changed in 2009. It changed only for the Food Stamp Program, not for the other programs.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Just wanted to say, they don't give FS out on the first of the month. They are distributed on different days depending on what letter your last name starts with. When I got FS I got them on the 13th of the month.

SSI and SSDI are distributed on the first of the month.

__________________
Insanity laughs under pressure we're cracking

Thanks for explaining this! I cannot understand why assets are not used while deciding eligiblity for food stamps. I think there should be a limit to what you own, or what you have in your savings account. No one should be getting help from the rest of us hard working individuals, if they have money in their savings account. Use the money to buy your food, then when its gone, apply for help. I feel bad for anyone having to dip into their savings just to feed their family, but in hard times.....that is what should be done. Once again...personal responsibility! I cannot imagine expecting someone else to buy food for my family....while I sit on a nest egg!

It depends on what state you live in. Our state, Oklahoma, everyone gets their Food Stamps at midnight on the 1st, other states give them out on certain dates, some stagger the dates, some states do it if you are certified on say the 13th then you will always receive them on the 13th. Just depends on what your state does.

Other reasons for grocery stores being crowded at the beginning of the month is if you live near a military base, military paydays are the 1st and 15th, Social Security payday is the 3rd (I think) and alot of places get paid on the 1st and 15th. I don't go near Walmart on the 1st, it's way too crowded, lol.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Not that it is important but Social security payday is each Wednesday of the month depending on your birthdate. 1-7 the first Wednesday; 8-14 the second Wednesday, etc. Pension checks are usually paid the last day of the month so that might contribute to the crush of shoppers on the first of the month.

__________________
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your consent.

E. Roosevelt

For all Social Security beneficiaries receiving benefits prior to May 1997 or receiving both Social Security benefits and SSI payments
3rd of the month

For all Social Security beneficiaries receiving benefits after April 1997 Second Wednesday
If birth date on 1st - 10th

Third Wednesday
If birth date on 11th - 20th

Fourth Wednesday
If birth date on 21st - 31st

2011 Schedule of Social Security Benefit Payments

Here are the SS pay dates

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

All this talk has got me thinking back to a few years ago when my mom passed away. To make a very long story short, she suffered from MS, and we were able to keep her in her own home for many years, but eventually her health reached a stage where the only option was a nursing home. She remained in the nursing home for about three years before passing away. Shortly after her death, her home was sold, and ALL the proceeds from the sale of her home went directly to the State of Maine. The entire time she was in the nursing home, her disablity check went directly to the nursing home to help offset some of the cost of her care. Because she was disabled, Social Security paid the remainer of the bill. So..although it was sad to see the home that had been in our family for generations be sold....I understood that she had received assistance, and it was a debt that needed to be settled. So...why should well bodied, healthy individuals not be expected to take responsibility for their own lives. Hey...maybe I am onto something...what if they had to pay back any assistance they recieved???

I have no clue, why they would ask if they don't use it. I looked at the app and it gives a list of items to bring in, on that list is NOT a copy of a bank statement or anything to that effect, but it does list things like utility bills etc. Here in Oklahoma they don't even ask.

My brother-in-law and sister-in-law (stay at home mom) live in Califronia, they own a house, 2 vehicles and a golf cart, have a savings account, make significantly more money than we do, but they qualify for Food Stamps, free Medical, lunches. They do have 3 kids in school and we only have one and the cost of living is higher, so that makes a difference. But they can afford to go out to the movies and out to dinner several times a month and the two teenagers go skating every Friday and Saturday night. They go on a couple of vacations a year. To me this is not quite right?

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

Tammy, that is why alot of people transfer the title of the home into one of their childrens names before they get to that stage. So they don't have to sell it to pay the state or to pay for nursing home care.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

You, ILL/Catherine/Lucy, are a narcissitic sociopath. It's always got to be about you.

I NEVER brought your grammar into this discussion--YOU DID.
Kelly has never made any bones about what she thought about you.

And you are a hypocrite! You complain about being referred to by "ILL", yet, you refer to KellyJef as KJ. WTF???

You are one seriously deranged, mentally ill woman. You need help of the professional variety!!!

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

M3, I did a bit of research and here is what I found for CA they do have a limit, but then they have something called restricted accounts which are unlimited and you can have as much money as you want in them, but they have to be for certain purposes like to buy a home, start a business or for education.

FOOD STAMP PROGRAM RESTRICTED ACCOUNT COVERSHEET
IMPORTANT TO KNOW

A RESTRICTED ACCOUNT IS:
An account in a bank, credit union, etc. where a family
who is receiving food stamps can keep money to be
spent for only the following allowable expenses:
● Buying a home to live in;
● Starting a business; or
● Education or job training for the account holder
and his/her dependents. (Dependents are those
who are or could be claimed as dependents on
the account holder’s federal income taxes.)
Before opening a restricted account, you may want to
have cash and other resources (such as bank accounts,
stocks, real estate, etc.) not exceeding your resource limit
available for your use. Here’s why:
If you use any of the funds in your restricted
account(s) to pay for emergencies, even when the
emergency is due to a death or life-threatening
situation, the withdrawal will count towards the
resource limit of $2,000 or $3,000 (if there is at least
one person in the household who is disabled or who
is age 60 or older).
RULES FOR A RESTRICTED ACCOUNT:
● You must be receiving food stamp benefits at
the time you set up the account.
● More than one restricted account is allowed.
● There is not a limit on the maximum amount of
savings in a restricted account.
● Funds in all restricted accounts do not count
against your family’s resource limit.
● You must sign a Restricted Account Agreement
before an account can be considered a
Restricted Account.
● You can only spend the funds on an allowable
expense.
● You must keep the funds, and any interest
earned in a restricted account(s) separate from
any other account.
● Interest earned on the Restricted Account(s)
must be deposited directly into the account(s).
● You must complete a Restricted Account
Agreement for each Restricted Account.
● If you have a restricted account and go off food
stamp benefits, the funds may be counted
against your property and resources

http://www.cdss.ca.gov/cdssweb/entre.../FS28Cover.pdf

As far as my BIL and SIL, yes they do pay a mortgage and their utilities, they have cell phones and the internet, but not real sure how many other bills they have. I know BIL is a mechanic so they do not have any of those type of expenses, he keeps up the vehicles himself. But SIL has to drive all 3 kids to school (3 different schools) because they live in a school district that charges for kids to ride the school bus, just started this school year.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

To Kellyjef the truth I wanted to hear was why you were answering my responses in the threads and yes you did come forward now and admit you do not like me, it was not silly, it was rude, never once here or there at the other website did I ever do anything to you, proves another point, you love to follow the click and be apart of the mean-spirited ladies... Rude and trouble making person you are...... To wow its dark I have had some private messages and there were some words spoken about my ILL meaning I am ILL in some way and sick and I would think if it were anyone else they would not like those Abbreviations either , I would sincerely like Lucy Better and it fits for Iluvlucy420. Catherine

RULES FOR A RESTRICTED ACCOUNT:
● You must be receiving food stamp benefits at
the time you set up the account.

To me this is just a bit crazy. You can afford to put money into a savings account, but can't afford to buy food?

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

It is you that is the narcissitic one Marilyn. Go back and read all your posts on various threads. How dare you call Catherine a sociopath. What makes you an authority?

Kelly Jef plays follow the leader all the time. She really does not have a mind of her own.

They live in the high desert, this is the first year they have ever had to pay for the bus. She obviously does not know she could get it for free. She is driving my nephew to the grade school, and one niece to the middle school and the other niece to the high school every morning and picks them up in the afternoon so she doesn't have to pay for the bus and they don't live in town, they live out in the country, so it's kind of a distance.

__________________
visit my homepage http://penny.mycoupons.com/

I'm not an authority. Never claimed to be--but I think she does have some serious psych issues.

Do a little research, look at things objectively.

LOL! Kelly has a mind of her own. However! It's amazing that you only come out when ILL starts whining about something, add that with your user name....hmmmm...wonder if you are a troll?? Seriously, ILL has some serious psychological issues. Maybe not sociopath, maybe it's bipolar, or some type somatoformization, or perhaps schizophrenia. I don't know, but I'd love to see an MMPI, and neuropsych eval on her.

BTW--I do have my own issues. I know this.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"