Food stamps have chaning views amongst conservatives

Another side effect of a craptacular economy.

 

I would like to say I'm surprised . . . . . but . . .well . .. . I would like to say I'm surprised

Rocket River

 

Liberals have led the charge to sponge off taxpayers, and have infected generation with their socialist crap. The stigma to be a leech is less and less, in fact is is now a "right". Congratulations. Nice recovery plan. Hopefully we will soon we all wind up on the dole. Disgusting.

 

I think much like any fringe element, they get blown out of porportion. Sure, there are people using food stamps that are lazy or are abusing the system. But then again, there are muslims that are terrorists, or christians who blow up abortion clinics. But that does not mean all who are on food stamps are lazy, nor all muslims are terrorists, nor all christians blow up abortion clinics.


Remember in elementary school one or two would ruin something for the whole class. Same thing in daily life. Takes one or two to make the rest look bad.

 

People, Wall Streeters, Folks from the Other side of the Tracks or Taxpayers will work they system for as much as they can get away with. That's human nature.

 

This pretty much sums it all up. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what someone calls you, we all take advantage of something that adversely effects others in one way or another.

 

What is really disgusting is that some people will begrudge another that has fallen on hard times.

I used to think like you do. Then I spent 6 years representing people in bankruptcy cases. I learned a lot. I saw that a good many people spent their adult lives working and paying their bills and then something very bad happened. It could be job loss or an unexpected death of the family bread winner or an illness...but something bad happened. They then found themselves in need of assistance until they could right the ship.

You should probably spend some time working with people in bad situations and analyzing their financial situations before spouting off about them.

Of course, that would not fit into your tide little mental construct where you can just toss human beings into labeled bins.

 

I could not agree more. It is no coincidence that so many of the conservatives or alleged libertarians on this site work with computers, engineering etc. or work in financial services and only with wealthy people if they work with the public at all.

 

I LOVE "the public"!

Today at Valero, a guy came in demanding to talk to the store manager because be bought some bad tamales at the Valero 10 miles down the road that gave him diarrhea. How much money do you socialist scum want to steal from me to give that brilliant guy? He needs to be SAVED with my money, the poor soul.

Maybe all the Atheist Charities out there can save them.

I also can not get enough of "the public" on Judge Judy. I watch it hours a day.


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3i2LRdkvM0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M3i2LRdkvM0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jmjir-S-_hs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jmjir-S-_hs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you say?

Then I realize that you actually believe the stuff on Judge Judy, so anything's fair game.

 

How are you watching judge judy "hours" a day? Are you getting paid unemployment and chilling at home all day? Get a job, deadbeat.

 

They need to cut some of the food stamps. I know of one family that gets too much money to buy milk. Every time they get their funds, they just buy the milk and give it to another family, who doesn't qualify due to income. It's a waste of our tax dollars.

Food stamps are ok. However, if too much is given to a family, that they end up giving the food away every month to a family that doesn't need it. That's awful. They need to lower the limits alloted to each family.

 

=

 

I think that you completely made that Valero story up. In fact, I will quote Clayton Williams..."I am calling you a liar."

I can understand a disdain for institutional, cradle to grave welfare. I cannot understand a disdain for temporary assistance for those who have faithfully paid into the system and now require assistance so they can get back on their feet.

It appears that you have become a blind slave to ideology. I have seen enough out there to tell you there, but for the grace of God go you.

 

In Texas, the Republican state government does everything possible to reduce benefits to those in need. I'd say if someone qualifies for food stamps, they better grab what they can get. They need it.


Texas slow to offer unemployment recipients a free alternative to debit cards

By Brenda Bell
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Sunday, November 29, 2009

In August 2007, Texas became one of a growing number of states to distribute unemployment benefits by debit cards, making the mailing of paper checks a thing of the past.

Since then, the number of Texans receiving unemployment — 558,174 in October, a sixfold increase — has soared. So, presumably, have the bank fees earned by JPMorgan Chase, whose debit cards are now the only way Texans can get their unemployment benefits.

Consumer advocates are not happy about some debit card fees, and the U.S. Department of Labor wants states to provide an alternative guaranteed to cost those who are out of work nothing: direct deposit of their unemployment checks into their own banks. Texas has yet to do so.

"It's a disgrace," said Don Baylor, a policy analyst with the Center for Public Policy Priorities, a nonprofit group that advocates for low-income Texans.

Of the 32 states that now issue jobless benefits by debit card, only Texas does not offer direct deposit, paper checks or an automated system that lets recipients transfer benefits to their own bank accounts. These options are free to recipients, while debit cards incur fees if not used carefully.

Texans pay nothing for unemployment benefit withdrawals, no matter how many, at Chase ATMs. At other ATMs, they get one free withdrawal each time the government distributes benefits every two weeks, but subsequent transactions can invoke fees ranging from 50 cents (for a balance inquiry at non-Chase ATMs) to $5 (for a withdrawal at a bank teller). Such fees are a primary source of revenue for debit card providers.

Despite the Department of Labor directive — and the support of Texas Workforce commissioners for direct deposit — the agency's executive director, Larry Temple, says it won't likely be available until mid-2010, a full three years after the switch to debit cards.

What's taking Texas so long? The answer is unclear.

With nearly a million Texans out of work, Temple said the agency's first priority was ramping up to deal with unprecedented numbers of jobless claims — an effort that necessitated hiring hundreds of new employees and spending 5,000 employee hours programming its computers to process federal extensions of benefits.

Besides, Temple said, none of the banks that competed for the agency's debit card contract offered direct deposit in their bids.

"We didn't get any takers on direct deposit," Temple told the American-Statesman. "None of our bidders added that when we sent out the request for proposals."

However, commission records of the contract negotiations show that in January 2007, Chase strongly recommended direct deposit as "the most convenient, cost effective, reliable and secure method of transferring funds from TWC to claimants. ... We are willing to offer direct deposit as a value added service as part of the JP Morgan Chase proposal."

The agency's rejection of Chase's offer "is mind-blowing to me," Baylor said. "There's no policy justification for it and no administrative justification."

Commission spokeswoman Ann Hatchitt said that the agency wanted a no-fee contract for debit card services and that Chase didn't quote a fee — if any — for handling direct deposits.

Chase spokesman Greg Hassell declined to comment on specifics of the contract, including how much money the company makes from it, other than to say, "TWC has opted not to provide this option."

Texas Workforce Commission chairman Tom Pauken said he "raised the issue" of direct deposit soon after being appointed by Gov. Rick Perry in March 2008. "I thought it was something we ought to take a hard look at. It still seems to be a sensible thing to do," he said.

Instead of adding a new payment system now, Temple said, the agency will await a new statewide contract for debit card services that will be negotiated by the Texas Council on Competitive Government. Direct deposit of unemployment checks will be part of that contract, which would take effect when the Chase contract expires in August 2010.

"Our commissioners are adamant about wanting to have direct deposit," Temple said.

Hatchitt said that the debit card system has been well-received by claimants and that there have been few if any complaints about the lack of a direct deposit option.

How states manage

With unemployment nationally at 10.2 percent, other states are also dealing with large numbers of jobless claims yet have managed to make direct deposit available to claimants. Minnesota and Alaska, for instance, use the same banks (US Bank, Wells Fargo) that process direct deposit of state employees' paychecks. The banks charge no extra fee, according to spokesmen for the state workforce agencies.

Others agencies have set up their own systems internally. It took Colorado, which also contracts with Chase for unemployment debit cards, less than six months to set up direct deposit for its jobless recipients, Department of Labor and Employment spokesman Bill Thoennes said. The cost to the state is about 2 cents for each electronic deposit — the same as it costs to deposit state employees' paychecks in their bank accounts.

(For its own state employees, Texas has long pushed direct deposit; 88 percent now receive their paychecks that way, according to the state comptroller.)

Utah's Department of Workplace Services also set up its own system. "From our end, it's preferred, because it's in our control," said Curt Stewart, spokesman for the department. "With the debit card, you have an outside vendor."

When given a choice of how to receive their unemployment benefits, many people prefer direct deposit over debit cards: 70 percent in Minnesota; 60 percent in Utah and Alaska. Exceptions are Arizona, where only 12 percent do, and Colorado, where 33 percent do. "Still, we think it's worth offering claimants the option," Thoennes said.

Gordon DeWitt, an electrical engineer in the semiconductor industry who lives in far Southwest Austin, started receiving his unemployment benefits via the Chase card in January and often uses it to make purchases at stores — cash transactions which do not incur fees. Though he reports no problems with the card and has never paid a fee to use it, he said he prefers direct deposit "just to not have another card" to deal with.

"Most unemployed people in this recession were banked, and it's likely they were getting direct deposit at their job," Baylor said. "Why would you force someone into another banking relationship if they already had one?"

It's a different subset of the unemployed — those without bank accounts and with less financial or technological savvy — who are seen as prime beneficiaries of the national trend of paying unemployment compensation via debit cards. The cards are safer than paper checks, and the money can be withdrawn or spent without incurring high fees at check-cashing stores.

The Department of Labor does not track what percentage of unemployment recipients are "unbanked," but that group is also considered more vulnerable to excessive debit card fees, department spokesman Mike Trupp said. "That's why we want the states to increase their efforts to educate all unemployment claimants on how to avoid fees, if there are fees at all," he said.

In the same August advisory that urged states to offer direct deposit, Assistant Secretary of Labor Jane Oates recommended giving claimants wallet-size cards listing fees they may be charged for debit card transactions. The Texas Workforce Commission details Chase's debit card fees on its Web site and in informational materials it gives to claimants.

What no state knows

During September and October, Texas distributed $1.18 billion in unemployment compensation, more than twice the payout of a year ago.

What the state doesn't know is how many of those dollars have gone into Chase's pockets, via fees charged debit cardholders for various transactions, such as using an out-of-network ATM to withdraw cash or make balance inquiries. The Workforce Commission's contract does not require Chase to disclose how much it earns in fees, and commission chairman Temple says there is no reason to ask.

"These are some personal choices that individuals make" in how they use the cards, Temple said. "We believe we've given them ample opportunities to (access their money) without fees. Our contract from a fee perspective is the best in the nation."

Other states have also not sought an accounting of debit card fees paid by the unemployed, nor has the federal government. "We do not collect that information," said Mike Trupo, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Labor.

Chase's contract with the Texas Workforce Commission, like similar debit card contracts with workforce agencies across the country, charges the state nothing. It saved Texas $1.4 million in costs associated with printing and mailing unemployment checks in 2008, the first full year of operation, said Hatchitt. Those costs would have gone up as unemployment increased this year.

The bank gets a potentially valuable consideration in return — the "float," or interest, between the time the state puts unemployment compensation funds in the bank and the time recipients spend them. This year, those funds are expected to total more than $3.5 billion in Texas. But in a down economy, with low interest rates and rapid spending of jobless benefits, the profit on the float falls.

That leaves two main sources of revenue for debit card providers: fees paid by merchants for point-of-sale purchases and other transactions and fees paid by cardholders — the unemployed.

The fees are small, but they add up. Texas recipients can make unlimited free withdrawals from Chase ATMs but only one free withdrawal from a non-Chase ATM each time the state deposits unemployment benefits. If one in ten recipients makes a second withdrawal at a non-Chase ATM — which costs $1.50 — the fees taken out of benefits would total more than $2 million in a year's time.

In Austin, using out-of-network ATMs is potentially more problematic on the east side of town, where Chase's Web site shows four ATMs east of or along Interstate 35, compared to 26 west of the freeway. While the government does not track unemployment rates in various sectors of the city, the rate in East Austin is thought to be about three times greater than the city as a whole, said John Turner, communications director for Southwest Key, a nonprofit social service agency.

The Chase Web site shows availability of ATMs is uneven in other large cities, as well, with concentrations on the west side of Houston and the north sides of Dallas and San Antonio. In the Valley there are dozens, while the count is in the single digits in Waco, Amarillo, Lubbock and Odessa.

A comparison of unemployment debit card fees in various states shows some have negotiated less favorable terms for cardholders than Texas, while others did better. However, Texas does not permit overdraft fees that have drawn criticism in some states and that the Labor Department says are "inconsistent" with federal rules on unemployment benefits. For insufficient balances on their debit cards, Chase simply charges $1 for a denied transaction.

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/11/29/1129directdeposit.html


Some folks may not "get" this, but the current state government has those most in need at the bottom of their list of sectors of the population that they care about. Other states offer direct deposit. Other states offer paper checks. Texas offers debit cards vaild at a bank that has their fewest ATMs in the poor parts of town. In other words, in the areas where unemployment is the highest. That dovetails with Texas being at or near the bottom in social services for the elderly, the handicapped, and children in need. Why are they at or near the bottom? Because of the current state government that makes it their policy to reduce benefits for those in need by making it difficult to get services other states provide as a matter of course.

I'm proud of my state, but this sucks. So the next time someone is ahead of you at the checkout line in the grocery store and fumbling with food stamps, don't get irritated... give them a smile. They could use one.

 

Every single penny. Then have you serve as his personal toilet tissue attendant.

 

Actually, the person I am talking about has a job. They don't collect unemployment. Every month, they are giving the milk to another couple. The other couple doesn't qualify, because they degreed professionals with salaries that that are too high.

My mom was on welfare for a few months, after her divorce and no job, when I was little kid. The government would give us these big giant sacks of dryed milk powder, at least 10 lbs. It was awful and grainy. We threw that stuff away, since we had enough food stamps to get other food. As a little kid, I didn't care about taxes or even know what they were. Now, I see the big waste of money of excess food subsidies going to the trash or to families that make too much money.

 

Well put Refman. We don't always know what life will bring us and as this economy should show is that any of us can fall on hard times even though we do everything right.

 

A lot of that has less to do with handing out a lot of food stamps but with subsidies for the dairy industry.

Its not so much welfare for the recipients of the food stamps and / or government milk but welfare for dairy farmers and milk processors.