SNAP/EBT/Food Stamps

[Wolfgang]

4 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

my wife cares. She'd prefer sci fi or a documentary.  My friends care.  They were recording as well.  I'm sure they're watching now. Wha sports fan wouldn't be?  You're ridiculous.

I would do the same.  Is your child hungry?  There was a decent jazz band in the cidery.   didn't miss an inning.. not ashamed.

 

 

 

 

[nedboy7]

22 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

@nedboy7 just wondering if you have any thoughts on what a reasonable health plan might look like for your family of two?  Monthly costs..,ded etc?  You indicated about $2,300 this year, with a 30% increase in 2026.   What’s fair given your income, health etc? 

Maybe I didn’t state it clearly?  My premium for a couple will be $15.6k this coming year. 8k each deductible. So potential to spend over 30k for a couple. Since we are the highest per capita for health premiums I think it would be reasonable to be expect about half of that.  Which is common in other countries. Your thoughts? 
I have had experience in health care billing and know what types of things go down.  I think the current system has immense room for improvement. 

Edited 12 hours ago by nedboy7

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Ted Striker]

On 10/30/2025 at 8:41 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

But if you've ever gotten a bill for a hospital stay

 

A hospital! What is it?

[Che Guevara]

Reading the posts throughout this thread, there appears to be themes that reoccur and those themes seem to center on the idea of who is or is not deserving of SNAP benefits and what SNAP means as a cost to taxpayer and the government and whether those costs are 'just.'  In terms of cost,

https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-does-the-federal-government-spend-on-snap-every-year/country/united-states/

SNAP represents 1.5% of federal budget expenditures at roughly $100 Billion per year.  

 

If people are really concerned about deficits and the role of social spending in driving deficits, SNAP seems like an odd starting point for that conversation.  The USDA's own website tracks the SNAP data. 

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap/key-statistics-and-research 

 

Note, the USDA is currently run by a Trump appointee and they have a political message at the top of their page that claims that the democrats have caused the government shutdown.  Of the data that is tracked, the USDA notes that SNAP spending creates a 1.54 times multiplier.  What this means is that for every $1 of SNAP benefit spent, the economy generates $1.54 in economic benefit.  In this regard the program is a benefit to the economy.  But, the issue isn't whether SNAP benefits are a benefit to the economy, the issue for those concerned about the deficit is that SNAP represents social spending that contributes to the deficit.  The US is looking at a $1.78 Trillion deficit for fiscal year 2025.  Eliminating all SNAP benefits would reduce the deficit to roughly $1.77 Trillion dollars.  A $1.78 Trillion versus a $1.77 Trillion budget deficit seems trivial.  A program that generates positive economic spillovers, reduces malnutrition, and is a targeted poverty reduction tool, that is low cost to taxpayers, should probably not be the focal point of a deficit reduction policy.  If I was in charge and tasked with making a legitimate dent in the budget deficit, SNAP would probably be one of the last places I would look for cost savings.  Instead, I would look at the big budget items and see where I could make a sizeable dent.  If, of course, that was the sort of issue I had concerns about.

 

On another note, there is another idea that SNAP beneficiaries are gaming the system.  And, in all likelihood there probably are some folks that have figured out how to game the system.  But, in the grand scheme of the SNAP program, the numbers look pretty normal and consistent.  The peak year, outside of the COVID years, in absolute terms, of recipients was 2013 when over 50 million (about 51 million) Americans received benefits.  And, 2013 makes sense in terms of SNAP recipients.  Looking at the data there are several big jumps in SNAP recipients 2008-2009 the numbers jump by 10 million from 25 to 35 million Americans and then from 35 to 45 million Americans in 2009-2010.  2008-2010 was the Great Recession with the unemployment rate over 10% in the fall of 2009, so, of course, the number of recipients would rise.  From 2010-2013 there is a much more gradual rise as the lingering high unemployment rates of the Great Recession persisted.  But, after 2013, the absolute number of SNAP recipients declines year over year (Obama to Trump) by 15+ million recipients down to about 35 million Americans in 2019.  Of course, with COVID there is another spike in recipients to 65 million and, predictably, coming out of COVID the numbers again decline precipitously to what is now about 41 million Americans (12.3% of the population) which is closely in line with the amount of poverty in the country.

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.  For me, I think $100 billion, relative to all of the other expenditures that our government makes, is a small price to pay for a program that is means tested and provides resources so people can purchase food, an actual basic need.

[Homelander]

Each person on this board stands far nearer to qualifying for SNAP than to achieving billionaire status.