i agree we need to protect SNAP funding, but I also think we need to revamp eligibility requirements. Right now they are solely income based. That’s why a guy who won a $2 million lottery can be eligible… as long as they have no current “income” they’re eligible. There should also be some kind of “net worth” limitation. I don’t think a family should have to sell their home, unless they have more than one and they’re worth millions (as in one case I seem to remember).

I would also like modification for seasonal workers as well as net worth consideration. Remember, food stamps are for those who can not afford to buy food. If a construction worker doesn’t work, by choice, from November to April, they are eligible for unemployment, food stamps, and who knows what else. At the same time they could be sitting on tens of thousands in equity on their house, own cars worth tens of thousands, etc. I have no problem funding programs, as long as only those that truly need the benefits get it.

I take it, Mr Fisher, that you don’t know many construction workers. While there are some who work only when the weather is good, most prefer to work year round. Got bills to pay.
With regard to what you seem to think are ready funds, equity in a house is zero until the house is sold. And while it is possible to get a home equity loan, it’s hard to do when you haven’t got a job.
As for the car worth “tens of thousands”, people are not required to sell off their primary mode of transportation. Most construction workers I know drive beat up pickups that don’t come near that “tens of thousands” mark.
There’s really no point in someone like yourself trying to micromanage government assistance programs. The intent of these programs is clearly not to put wealthy football coach’s sons in Section 8 housing, but the requirements shouldn’t be so stingy that they effectively prevent people from ever getting out of poverty

Mr Fisher,
I think you would be ever so much happier if you would give up this notion that you are entitled to micromanage other people’s lives. What other people eat is really none of your business and besides, the primary function of the food stamp program, administered through the Department of Agriculture since the 1930s, is to subsidise famers, food processors, and grocery stores, not feed the starving.
Qualifying for food stamps is obviously harder than you think And if you are really interested in what the criteria are, you need to either trot on down to the local welfare office and ask them. They have information sheets that will tell you. Or you can go on line.
People are allowed a certain level of resources. They can keep their house if they own because people have to live somewhere. And they can keep their car because if they don’t have transprtation they can’t get to work.
You can also get information on what food stamps will buy and what they won’t. And FYI, candy is off the list.
Rule of thumb, if the food is taxed, you can’t buy it with an EBT card. The cash register computer which is programed to read the RBT card’s magnetic strip won’t let you

Mr Fisher,
What I said was rule of thumb, any food item that’s taxed cannot be purchased with an EBT card. I don’t normally buy candy, but the last time I did it was taxed.
You can argue the niggley stuff if you like but what is at issue here is what you think is important vs what I think is important.
I think people have a right to privacy, that they have a right to make personal decisions without suffering the condemnation of people who can’t seem to mind their own business.
You have indicated that you believe that privacy, which is a fundamental American value, is somehow dependent on source of income and that you are entitled on that basis to condemn people when they make personal decisions, no matter how trivial, that you don’t like.
.I believe that envy is considered one of the seven deadly siins for a reason. You have indicated that you envy and feel resentment toward total strangers standing in front of you in line at the grocery store because you think that their clothes are better than yours, their car is better than yours and that because they are using an EBt card, they must dress rattier than you do and drive a junkier car than you do, that they must fit your notion of what a poor person must look like.
And you base this on the fact that tax payer money–which you see as your money–pays for that EBT card.
Except it’s not your money. That money belongs to the collective US and how it is spent is determined by our elected representatives. If you have a problem with candy bars, go pester them. If how we, as a nation, spend public money is determined by 350 million individuals all demanding that every dime be spent as they individually see fit, the system’s going to fall apart. We can’t function like that.
What you need to keep in mind is that the food stamp program was originally set up as part of the surplus commodities program during the Great Depression. Its primary purpose was to ensure a market for farm products. Feeding the hungry was just an added benefit.
With regard to that coach purse, you don’t know anything about the woman who had that purse. You don’t know how old the purse is, you don’t know how she got it. And for all you know she’s grocery shopping for a bedridden friend or neighbor or family member who can’t make it to the store because they are sick. It happens
I’m also wondering why it is that conservatives think it’s ok to resent the poor, but when liberals point out that the gap in wealth and income is wider than it’s been since 1929, it’s class envy.
Or is class envy ok only when it’s directed down.

Mr Fisher,
I know about the sales tax. There used to be a correlation. Back in the ’70s, virtually all edible stuff was tax free. So it was a good rule of thumb. I’d completely forgotten about changes in the sales tax—was it in the ’90s? But if you want to keep beating on that as evidence of how stupid I am, feel free.
Your topics:
1) Privacy: the information given to the government in applying for assistance is confindential and none of your business. It is likewise none of your business what other people eat or how they choose to pay for it.
2) Envy: you are clearly envious of poor people because they dress better than you, drive nicer cars, and carry Coach purses. Plus they’re getting something you’re not getting. Also, your list–”revulsion, repulsion, loathing, appalling”–falls under the heading “anger” which is, indeedy, one of the seven deadly sins.
3) Taxpayer money: is not your money. It is the fee you pay for goods and services provided by the government. And while this forum may be a place to express your opinion, your elected repreetatives are not reading it.
4) Ballooning government programs: this one was begun during the Great Depression in response to demand. The original surplus commodities program was the government buying excess crops and livestock and destroying them.. This was met with such outrage that the government quickly switched to distributing the food to schools, soup kitchens, food pantries, and destitute women and children and elderly. Eighty years later the program still serves its original purpose.
We’re in a recession. The economy stinks. One of the things that happens when the economy stinks, is the increasing number of people whose income goes south. We have 20 million more people whose income went low enough to qualify them for food stamps than we had five years ago. Nothing ballooned, nothing deviated from original purpose, nobdy is gaming anything.

And yeah, “ask not”. That was John F Kennedy and it was a call to service, not a call for tax cuts or a roll back of New Deal social welfare programs. Its larger context is the New Deal—”From those to whom much has been given, much is expected”. That’s Franklin Roosevelt.
As to which party do I think Kennedy would belong to today? Do you honestly think a man as cool as JFK would be caught dead standing next to the likes of Donald Trump, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney? Do you honestly think a war hero like JFK would be caught in the company of those who have routinly belittled the military service of their political opponents. I assume you know what Joe Walsh is doing to Tammi Duckworth. You want repulsive, that’s repulsive

It would be nice to have the perfect formula that provided that those who are truly in need get help and those who are not, do not. That formula does not exist so we come up with rules and guidelines that are feeble attempts to find the “perfect rule”. We will never get it perfect.

We have a choice. If we error on the side of being too generous, those who are not deserving may get some unmerited benefits. If we error on the side of being to restrictive, those who are truly needy will go without, including malnourished children.

Of course, I want the prefect formula, but if we are going to error, I would rather error on the side of the children that are at risk for malnourishment. That’s how every American should think.