40 Million Americans Receive SNAP Benefits To Help With Food - Many Not American Citizens

[MTTiger19]

An easy fix to this would be making people “earn” their benefits. For every year of work you are earning 1 month of government assistance for you and your family only. It’s not transferable. If you haven’t worked enough then you have to work it off or repay it. You eat what you kill.

 

[MTTiger19]

Yeah, he's pretty unhinged. I haven't been lurking here for long, but it's wild seeing how untethered he seems to have gotten over the last few months.

When there’s an obvious right and an obvious wrong it’s easy to appear this way. Especially to people with no foundation for truth and integrity and accountability and responsibility. It’s rough.

 

[PawPride]

When there’s an obvious right and an obvious wrong it’s easy to appear this way. Especially to people with no foundation for truth and integrity and accountability and responsibility. It’s rough.

Whatever you say. You're clearly stuck in an echo chamber of hate and grievances. You should step back and disconnect for a while. It will probably do wonders for your mental health.

 

[baltimorened]

Have you ever taken a deduction? Same thing.

oops, wait a minute. I thought taking deductions like this was a "loophole". At least that is how we refer to it when the wealthy take legal deductions/credits.

 

[MTTiger19]

Whatever you say. You're clearly stuck in an echo chamber of hate and grievances. You should step back and disconnect for a while. It will probably do wonders for your mental health.

You’ve posted over 52,000 times on a dumb message board and you’re worried about my mental health? Get a life.

 

[PawPride]

You’ve posted over 52,000 times on a dumb message board and you’re worried about my mental health? Get a life.

Maybe if you posted more you wouldn't be so ornery and hateful. Then again, probably not, since you seem to revel in being a miserable *******.

 

[MTTiger19]

Maybe if you posted more you wouldn't be so ornery and hateful. Then again, probably not, since you seem to revel in being a miserable *******.

I’m busy working so 40 mill can get free stuff. Don’t have time. Apparently you have an abundance of it though. Good for you I guess.

 

[MTTiger19]

Keep in mind I’m on the side of not giving non-citizens social welfare benefits. But the argument is cheapened when you use extremely inaccurate data as a foundational point. See below from chatGPT. It says about 3.5% of SNAP recipients are non-citizens. Even if there are some additional illegals on there, there is no mathematical possibility of that group making up 70% of SNAP expenditures. It’s so far off it’s comical and kills your argument. Focus on accuracy and defensible facts.

Gizmo 3 comparison

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

I found this. If true it appears to counter.
A 2023 Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2022 Census SIPP data found 53.5% of immigrant-headed households use at least one major welfare program (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, EITC)—higher than 39% for U.S.-born households. This persists after adjusting for education/income; illegal immigrant households show ~59% use (often via U.S.-born children). However, immigrants are barred from most benefits for 5 years; higher rates reflect poverty among recent/low-skilled arrivals. Cato Institute counters that immigrants use less welfare per capita when excluding Medicaid for non-citizens.

 

[tigres88]

I found this. If true it appears to counter.
A 2023 Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2022 Census SIPP data found 53.5% of immigrant-headed households use at least one major welfare program (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, EITC)—higher than 39% for U.S.-born households. This persists after adjusting for education/income; illegal immigrant households show ~59% use (often via U.S.-born children). However, immigrants are barred from most benefits for 5 years; higher rates reflect poverty among recent/low-skilled arrivals. Cato Institute counters that immigrants use less welfare per capita when excluding Medicaid for non-citizens.

The core statistics in the claim are factually accurate, but they represent only part of a complex picture. The 53.5% figure for immigrant household welfare usage is correct, as is the higher rate for illegal immigrant households. However, several important contextual factors must be considered:

1. Per capita consumption remains lower for immigrants when considering total government expenditures
2. Most benefits go to U.S.-born children in immigrant households
3. Methodological challenges exist in identifying illegal immigrants in survey data
4. State-level variations significantly affect actual access to benefits
5. Age demographics heavily influence total benefit consumption patterns

The claim presents valid data but would benefit from acknowledging these methodological limitations and the multifaceted nature of immigrant welfare usage. Both the CIS and Cato analyses contribute valuable but complementary perspectives to understanding this complex policy issue.

My question for you @MTTiger19 is does this REALLY affect your life in any real way? Like, honestly does this makes your life worse to see these stats? Get away from your echo chamber- you're clearly a blue collar guy. There is no reason to remove the humanity from your fellow blue collar workers, legal or undocumented, to fit your agenda.

It's not worth it- you're projecting your personal grievances on humans. Literal people, who aren't affecting your life in any way get you all riled up. There's a better way homie

 

[tboonpickens]

 

[ANEW]

The core statistics in the claim are factually accurate, but they represent only part of a complex picture. The 53.5% figure for immigrant household welfare usage is correct, as is the higher rate for illegal immigrant households. However, several important contextual factors must be considered:

1. Per capita consumption remains lower for immigrants when considering total government expenditures
2. Most benefits go to U.S.-born children in immigrant households
3. Methodological challenges exist in identifying illegal immigrants in survey data
4. State-level variations significantly affect actual access to benefits
5. Age demographics heavily influence total benefit consumption patterns

The claim presents valid data but would benefit from acknowledging these methodological limitations and the multifaceted nature of immigrant welfare usage. Both the CIS and Cato analyses contribute valuable but complementary perspectives to understanding this complex policy issue.

My question for you @MTTiger19 is does this REALLY affect your life in any real way? Like, honestly does this makes your life worse to see these stats? Get away from your echo chamber- you're clearly a blue collar guy. There is no reason to remove the humanity from your fellow blue collar workers, legal or undocumented, to fit your agenda.

It's not worth it- you're projecting your personal grievances on humans. Literal people, who aren't affecting your life in any way get you all riled up. There's a better way homie

You obviously recognize that some immigrants are here illeagally because you specified, "legal". Then you pivoted to using the word, "undocumented" . LOL.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Keep in mind I’m on the side of not giving non-citizens social welfare benefits. But the argument is cheapened when you use extremely inaccurate data as a foundational point. See below from chatGPT. It says about 3.5% of SNAP recipients are non-citizens. Even if there are some additional illegals on there, there is no mathematical possibility of that group making up 70% of SNAP expenditures. It’s so far off it’s comical and kills your argument. Focus on accuracy and defensible facts.

Gizmo 3 comparison

A conversational AI system that listens, learns, and challenges

chatgpt.com

I disagree with that percentage. No telling where it was pulled from. Garbage in garbage out. I'm not saying 70% is correct either. Its an ongoing fact finding discussion and if I posted this one in error then so be it.

 

[TigerGrowls]

Manipulated is the key word here. You are being manipulated with the spin on data. For example, this statement could be accurate:

70% of immigrant-led households receive some form of social welfare.

But that absolutely does not mean that immigrant-led households represent 70% of those costs. Understanding this takes a middle school level understanding of stats and denominators.

Don't take every post I put on here too seriously especially when I dont add a comment.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[Allornothing]

Earned income tax credit is a handout whether a good idea for some or not. Its a subtraction on the balance sheet.

I've told this story before but I'm going to tell it again.

My wife's cousin. She is well over 40 years old, but has never had any job to my knowledge (ANY, in over 40 years). She has 2 kids (which she is not even raising by the way) but she gets back thousands from EIC on her taxes.

I know this for a fact, because I have done her taxes a couple of times. This should not be possible.

You put nothing in, you should get nothing back.

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[MTTiger19]

I disagree with that percentage. No telling where it was pulled from. Garbage in garbage out. I'm not saying 70% is correct either. Its an ongoing fact finding discussion and if I posted this one in error then so be it.

This is what I could find. It appears that they are able to use their children to skew the numbers but according to this over half of ALL immigrants are on at least one major welfare program. That’s not strength. If you’re importing people and over half will become dependent on tax payers that’s really bad. We have our own citizens to take care of not to mention 37 trillion in debt.

2023 Center for Immigration Studies analysis of 2022 Census SIPP data found 53.5% of immigrant-headed households use at least one major welfare program (e.g., SNAP, Medicaid, EITC)—higher than 39% for U.S.-born households. This persists after adjusting for education/income; illegal immigrant households show ~59% use (often via U.S.-born children).

 

[MTTiger19]

In all seriousness could this be an underlying reason why we’ve seen grocery costs skyrocket across the board. There’s 40 million “shoppers” that do not care about price, meaning the companies can charge more.
I work hard for my money and that makes me more conscious about spending. We all have been given money by our friends or family at some point, we all know we don’t treat money we’ve been given the same as money we’ve earned. My theory is simple - welfare recipients don’t care about price because they get hand outs. They’re not cutting things off the list or finding cheaper alternatives because it’s free to them. If corporations are seeing this stuff fly off the shelf because about 1/3 - 1/4 of the adult population is purchasing with food stamps, that’s going to cause pricing issues for those that don’t get that subsidy in the form of higher prices. If these benefits were substantially reduced I feel strongly you’d see grocery prices drop significantly which is beneficial to ALL Americans. The same exact thing is happening right now with the ACA and healthcare. The moral here is liberal policies, while kind, are horrible for middle class working people. It’s the policies of elites and slaves, not empowering populism.

 

[TigerGrowls]

In all seriousness could this be an underlying reason why we’ve seen grocery costs skyrocket across the board. There’s 40 million “shoppers” that do not care about price, meaning the companies can charge more.
I work hard for my money and that makes me more conscious about spending. We all have been given money by our friends or family at some point, we all know we don’t treat money we’ve been given the same as money we’ve earned. My theory is simple - welfare recipients don’t care about price because they get hand outs. They’re not cutting things off the list or finding cheaper alternatives because it’s free to them. If corporations are seeing this stuff fly off the shelf because about 1/3 - 1/4 of the adult population is purchasing with food stamps, that’s going to cause pricing issues for those that don’t get that subsidy in the form of higher prices. If these benefits were substantially reduced I feel strongly you’d see grocery prices drop significantly which is beneficial to ALL Americans. The same exact thing is happening right now with the ACA and healthcare. The moral here is liberal policies, while kind, are horrible for middle class working people. It’s the policies of elites and slaves, not empowering populism.

Fully agree.

 

[MTTiger19]

Fully agree.

I suspect many do. Knowing that, put yourself in the position of say a hotel custodian. Now how do you think he feels watching Schumer and co shut down our federal government so they can give out the money you made to freeloaders. Then you get to go buy groceries and watch the welfare rats load up three carts of food while you walk out with a bag of chips, turkey and bread for 40$. They’re printing future republican voters right now and don’t even realize it. The FAFO will be legendary. The only thing that scares me a little is it will cause unrest in those big cities most likely.

 

[bdgan]

Have you ever taken a deduction? Same thing.

Negative taxes = welfare

 

[bdgan]

Explain this.

The amazing thing is that the unemployment rate was much higher from 2007-2014 but food stamps spending has skyrocketed.

 

[bdgan]

Incredible.

That wouldn't be nearly enough to balance the budget but I agree it would make a dent and democrats would lose a lot of votes.

 

[TigerGrowls]

The amazing thing is that the unemployment rate was much higher from 2007-2014 but food stamps spending has skyrocketed.

Obviously a lot of fraud involved imo.

 

[bdgan]

Obviously a lot of fraud involved imo.

I don't know about "fraud" but Biden increased benefits by 25% in 2021

How the Biden Administration Increased Food Stamp Spending by $300 Billion - EPIC for America

Biden approves largest permanent increase in food stamps - here's what it means for 42M Americans in the program

 

[TigerGrowls]

This should happen.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

Very telling.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

.

 

[fatpiggy]

 

[scotchtiger]

I honestly don’t understand how some of this stuff is even controversial.

— Social welfare is for us citizens only
— Able-bodied people must work (or care for a dependent family member, go to school, etc)
— Supplemental NUTRITION assistance program should not include candy, sodas and extremely unhealthy foods

What am I missing here? How are these not 90/10 policies?

 

[baltimorened]

I honestly don’t understand how some of this stuff is even controversial.

— Social welfare is for us citizens only
— Able-bodied people must work (or care for a dependent family member, go to school, etc)
— Supplemental NUTRITION assistance program should not include candy, sodas and extremely unhealthy foods

What am I missing here? How are these not 90/10 policies?

If you go back to the original creation of these programs, there were legitimate reasons. People should not have to go hungry in our country. But, over time, requirements for receipt of the benefits get watered down, management of the programs seemingly get worse and worse and of course, once you have a benefit, it never goes away. Look at the growth of SNAP over the last 10 years, and ask someone to justify it.

I agree with whoever said that we need to take a year, set standards and have everyone on SNAP, and other social programs for that matter, have to recertify their eligibility for the programs. Hard to do, but necessary, especially if you are concerned about a $38trillion, and growing debt.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[scotchtiger]

Great point! How do we have a supplemental NUTRITION program that results in the average recipient being obese? It’s just wild.

We should add an annual physical requirement to receive benefits. Your benefits don’t start until you’ve achieved some semblance of a healthy body weight. Because in addition to SNAP, these people are costing us a lot of money in Medicaid due to self-imposed poor health.

 

[bdgan]

In a city near me a developer wanted to build high end units along a river where dilapidated government housing existed. The developer offered to purchase some vacant land away from the river and build new subsidized housing at his expense. The mayor said no way, poor people deserve river views too.