Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Food Stamps Aren't Subsidies for McDonald's

Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 7:26:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 2:21:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I had a caseload of 500 households, and less than 10% (an estimate) had a family member working fast food.
More did work minimum wage jobs, but the myth that most households on welfare have working members is bogus. If any one wants to give such stats I will debunk them.

40% of all food stamp household have zero net income, more deductions than income.
Half of those (20% total) have zero gross income - not a penny of any kind.
http://www.fns.usda.gov...

Now there is more to this part:
The government isn"t subsidizing Wal-Mart; it"s not exclusively Wal-Mart"s responsibility to make sure that Wal-Mart"s workers bring in enough cash every week. Instead, the government is helping workers who can"t command adequate wages to make ends meet.

At some walmart stores, 40% of the food sales is in food stamps.
http://finance.yahoo.com...
[Wal-Mart "gets a large fraction of Food Stamp dollars," which contributes 25% to 40% of revenue at select stores, according to Nestle. "These companies, therefore, have a vested interest in making sure Food Stamps are allowed for any purchase at all."]
The story is about using food stamps for junk food.

So with walmart, if you consider the Medicaid and food stamps the workers get, plus the food stamps the stores take in sales, they would be in bad shape without government money.
I heard in some states they are or plan to give limited medical services (like a clinic) and would accept Medicaid as payment. Yeah.

It is common knowledge that walmart supervisors advise workers to apply for Medicaid in particular, and food stamp as well. Welfare benefits are, in effect, considered to be part of the 'benefit package' available to employees.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 8:24:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 7:26:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/20/2015 2:21:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
So with walmart, if you consider the Medicaid and food stamps the workers get, plus the food stamps the stores take in sales, they would be in bad shape without government money.
I heard in some states they are or plan to give limited medical services (like a clinic) and would accept Medicaid as payment. Yeah.

It is common knowledge that walmart supervisors advise workers to apply for Medicaid in particular, and food stamp as well. Welfare benefits are, in effect, considered to be part of the 'benefit package' available to employees.

If social welfare programs shut down tomorrow, Walmart wouldn't have to step in to provide their employees with health insurance, etc in order to keep them, so the government is not subsidizing them in that respect. Secondly, the fact that Walmart benefits from food stamps does not mean they are subsidized by the government. The food stamp recipients are subsidized, and Walmart happens to benefit from it. They still have to compete with everyone else for those food stamps, so their profit is not artificial.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:00:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Interesting editorial, and it is surprisingly pro welfare state for a person hailing from the American Enterprise Institute. He did make one hypothetical, though, that he failed to back up with any relevant data whatsoever: "if a worker who makes $9/hr only brings in $9 of revenue per hour, that worker can hardly expect to earn $15/hr."

True, of course, but that brings up the question: what is the typical revenue made per total compensation ratio? Say, at McDonalds?

This is a glaring omission in my view...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:05:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/20/2015 8:24:13 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/20/2015 7:26:12 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 4/20/2015 2:21:26 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
So with walmart, if you consider the Medicaid and food stamps the workers get, plus the food stamps the stores take in sales, they would be in bad shape without government money.
I heard in some states they are or plan to give limited medical services (like a clinic) and would accept Medicaid as payment. Yeah.

It is common knowledge that walmart supervisors advise workers to apply for Medicaid in particular, and food stamp as well. Welfare benefits are, in effect, considered to be part of the 'benefit package' available to employees.

If social welfare programs shut down tomorrow, Walmart wouldn't have to step in to provide their employees with health insurance, etc in order to keep them, so the government is not subsidizing them in that respect.

Well, if someone else offered health insurance, walmart would lose their employees.
If no Medicaid, more businesses would have to figure out a way to provide health insurance.
Half of all babies born are paid for my Medicaid.
Supervisors spend company time saying 'Hey, sorry we do not offer health insurance, let me know if you need help filling out the Medicaid application.'.
What you say is true to a certain point, I agree - but it only goes so far.

Secondly, the fact that Walmart benefits from food stamps does not mean they are :subsidized by the government. The food stamp recipients are :subsidized, and Walmart happens to benefit from it. They still have to :compete with everyone else for those food stamps, so their profit is not artificial.

If there are no food stamps, no one has to compete for them, since they do not exist.
That $1 million in food each month in one community, is not bought, anywhere.
Your argument is not that walmart is not subsidized by food stamps, it just that they are not unequally or unfairly subsidized. Think about it.

Welfare programs subsidize businesses.
Did you read the link to the 'food stamps pay for junk food' article?
Junk food companies (frito lay, coke, etc) pay big bucks to the 'feed the hungry' campaigns, and welfare rights organizations, to insure that food stamps recipients are not restricted in what they buy.
If they did not care about welfare dollars, why throw that money away?
The goodness of their hearts? Yeah, right.

Utility companies depend on welfare to pay for the bills that would never get paid by the customers, if there were no welfare.
In a small 'city' of 70,000, easily millions a month is paid out just to grocery stores, and medical providers. That does not include landlords and utility companies.

$550 billion dollars a year going out in welfare payments -federal budget, state adds to that.
All of it passing through the hands of businesses.
In the big scheme of things, not much money.
For certain businesses, it is their lifeblood.
Republicans do not fight against welfare, for a reason.
Name me one politician, anywhere, who has a solid commitment to cutting welfare - not social security or Medicare, they are not considered welfare.
I'm not saying there is not one, but if there is one, I'd like to know who it is. Scarcer than hen's teeth.
Fly
Posts: 2,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2015 9:14:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
^^^ Some good points there. That just reminded me of how these companies ARE subsidized by welfare, if their employees use that welfare money to buy more of their company's products than they otherwise would.

Yet another glaring omission in the editorial...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2015 8:05:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Currently making the rounds on news media is the story that most welfare families are working.
I want to show the rest of the story.
Here is a Wall Street Journal blog (that is typical):

Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One

"the majority of households receiving government assistance are headed by a working adult."
The study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs - including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit - flowed to working families and individuals with jobs.
http://blogs.wsj.com...

UC of Berkley report - source document for the above comments
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu...
From the report:
Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of enrollments in America"s major public benefits programs are
from working families.
This report documents that nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of public benefits spending goes to working families"i.e., families with a working member.
In all, more than half "56 percent"of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.

To me, these seem to be conflicting statements. They are all in the same report.

The report explains how this statement is true:
In all, more than half "56 percent"of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.

"Working families" applies to families, who have one or more members able to work, who earn at least $2000 a year. [We define working families as those that have at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week.]
If there are three healthy adults, and at least one earns $2000 a year, that meets the requirements.
Of those receiving EITC (earned income tax credit), 26% do not meet the definition of "working".
"Public assistance" refers to Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANF (cash assistance) and EITC (earned income tax credit), but only those payments made to households that have a potential working adult, not benefits paid to elderly, disabled, others.
For example it does not include SSI households, a federal welfare program (not social security) that costs $50 billion a year in cash payments, and about twice that in Medicaid and other welfare programs.
It does not include households receiving social security or retirement, and it does not include the welfare benefits they receive.
It does not include welfare benefits such as housing (HUD, SECTION 8), school lunch programs, energy assistance, head start, day care, more.

To summarize, it only considers household headed by an employable adult, does not count about half of all program dollars spent on public assistance. It also considers a household to be working if one person earns $2000.

Or, to put it another way, half of all welfare households who do not have an elderly or disabled member, have someone working and making $2000 or more per year.


Here are descriptions of the welfare households
Medicaid - 61% have a working member - 34 million total families
TANF - 32% have a working member - 2 million total
SNAP - 36% have a working member " 10 million total [only one third of all food stamps households have someone working - $2000 per year]
EITC - 74% have a working member " 20.6 million
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2015 5:23:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/21/2015 11:52:04 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/21/2015 8:05:16 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
Is it possible for you to write in a way that doesn't give me cancer?

Most folks just complain of heartburn and headaches.

Like your signature line.