SNAP benefits to end due to US govt shutdown

I haven't read most of the comments, don't want to get sucked into political aspect of this.

However, if you are someone.who is struggling, do a search for places offering help. I came across article that some eateries in nearest city to me are offering help, did more searching and found Santa Fe places are too. Posted article on FB.

Most are offering food for kids, but some for seniors and one place for anyone during certain hours, certain days. Also some will be collecting donations to help food banks. I suggested that if you're doing fine, patronizing these places will help fund their giving. So check out what's going on near you. I have to be in Albuquerque next week for my annual check up on my corneal implants. Plan to check if any of the places are relatively near my route. If i lived in the city we'd probably visit several in the coming weeks.

Will also go to local senior center and see if they're doing any outreach along these lines. I'm not wealthy by any means but will offer what help i can.
 

Last edited:
MACKTEXAS said:
Although the wealthy pay the most federal income tax, it is payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and those taxes fall more heavily on lower and middle-income earners.

Social Security taxes have an income cap, so higher earners pay a smaller percentage of their total income toward it, allowing the richest Americans to minimize their income tax liability and increase their wealth.
Click to expand...
Lifting the cap would be a great idea.
 
Yeah, I've mentioned that several times on this board in the past. The whole puppet media narrative of Wall Street and both political parties, of "We need more people (population), more births or immigration to support future Social Security payments." is a huge LIE. The obvious solution has always been to raise the maximum income rate that can be taxed for SS. Although that maximum has been incrementally raised since 1977 per average wages (now $184k), it really needs to be raised to say $1,000,000, not just $250k.

But that is the last thing wealthy people even want to hear, so they will do about anything to keep that quiet. It is the wealthy and corporations that got us into the situation, so they ought be the ones to pay for it. Instead, we get excessive illegal immigration, horrible homelessness, and high housing inflation (that financial and real estate corps really really love). A prime example of how a majority of US citizens are so easily manipulated by news media and unable to think through such issues themselves, and why I personally just want to hide from it all.
 
David777 said:
Yeah, I've mentioned that several times on this board in the past. The whole puppet media narrative of Wall Street and both political parties, of "We need more people (population), more births or immigration to support future Social Security payments." is a huge LIE. The obvious solution has always been to raise the maximum income rate that can be taxed for SS. Although that maximum has been incrementally raised since 1977 per average wages (now $184k), it really needs to be raised to say $1,000,000, not just $250k.

But that is the last thing wealthy people even want to hear, so they will do about anything to keep that quiet. It is the wealthy and corporations that got us into the situation, so they ought be the ones to pay for it. Instead, we get excessive illegal immigration, horrible homelessness, and high housing inflation (that financial and real estate corps really really love). A prime example of how a majority of US citizens are so easily manipulated by news media and unable to think through such issues themselves, and why I personally just want to hide from it all.
Click to expand...
Even eliminating the cap would only close half the gap. Demographics are important, whether you acknowledge that or not.
 
While the SNAP is the most pressing issue at the moment, remember SNAP is going to resume sometime, but what the bigger issue is, is the coming price increases for Obama Care that are going to be in the neighborhood of 17% in plans run by states, and perhaps 30% on plans run by the feds.

Of course the healthy, young people will do w/out (that represents 4% of the increase), some will down grade their plans to bronze moving them in to high deductible policies(~$7000/year/family), and some will not be able to afford even that.

Then in 2027 when the $1Trillion cuts in medicaid begin we'll have a whole other group begin to deal w no health care, which will harm them, but also those providers serving them and the hospitals and clinics they work in. The rural hospital systems are going to be under enormous pressure just to find a way to carry on. Let's face it the fewer the customers that medical providers have the more expensive the care is per patient and more difficult it will be to maintain even what we have now.

You know people will suffer w/out SNAP, and there are some resources available to fill the gap with charity, but what about health care? How can we collect canned health care (no jars or perishables pls), drop it at a collection point, to be redistributed to those w/out?


It's us against the billionaires!!!
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Our local hospital, and doctor's offices have become little more than a first aid station, but that's due to our specific situation. My wife is now classified as a high risk patient, so other than routine stuff, like check ups or an infection, etc-- we have to go 100 miles away. Thing is, most likely this situation will be more widespread for financial reasons once the medicaid cuts go into effect, because it is a small medical center.
 
AnneTeak said:
it has been said

"Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor but because we cannot satisfy the rich"
Click to expand...
In the 1950s, marginal tax rates on income were in excess of 90 percent. Yet the poverty rate in 1956 was 22 percent. Today it is 10.6 percent. So whoever said that was, well, dead wrong.
 
Irishdude said:
In the 1950s, marginal tax rates on income were in excess of 90 percent. Yet the poverty rate in 1956 was 22 percent. Today it is 10.6 percent. So whoever said that was, well, dead wrong.
Click to expand...

In the 1950's there was no Social Security or Medicare. Those two programs have dramatically reduced senior citizen poverty. Those programs are funded by new taxes that did not exist in the 1950's.
 
Trade said:
In the 1950's there was no Social Security or Medicare. Those two programs have dramatically reduced senior citizen poverty. Those programs are funded by new taxes that did not exist in the 1950's.
Click to expand...
Social Security's first checks went out in 1935. Medicare started in 1965.
Irishdude said:
In the 1950s, marginal tax rates on income were in excess of 90 percent. Yet the poverty rate in 1956 was 22 percent. Today it is 10.6 percent. So whoever said that was, well, dead wrong.
Click to expand...
According to what I can find, the US didn't establish poverty thresholds until the 1960s. Where are you finding your statistics?
 
StarSong said:
I just read a book about Frances Perkins, Secretary of Labor for 12 years. She pressed for and was the prime orchestrator of Social Security in 1934, culminating in its passage in 1935, and was the first woman to serve in a Presidential cabinet.

FDR held her in very high regard.
Click to expand...

I don't know what the Hell old people did before Social Security if they weren't rich. I guess gramps and granny sat at the dinner table with the rest of the family like they did on "The Waltons"
 

Attachments

  • the-waltons21.jpg
    the-waltons21.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 1
StarSong said:
Social Security's first checks went out in 1935. Medicare started in 1965.

According to what I can find, the US didn't establish poverty thresholds until the 1960s. Where are you finding your statistics?
Click to expand...
This is what I found on Google AI:

The U.S. poverty rate in 1956 is estimated to have been around 22% to 25%, based on figures from the 1950s. Data shows a national average poverty rate of 24% in 1959, and some sources point to 22% as a historical high rate during the 1950s.
  • Estimated rate: The rate is estimated to be between 22% and 25%.
  • 1959 national average: The average poverty rate across the states was 24% in 1959.
  • High-end estimate: Some sources cite 22% as the highest poverty rate on record, occurring in the 1950s.
  • Regional variation: Poverty was not evenly distributed, with some states like Mississippi having a rate of 54.5% in 1959.
BTW I'm not a fan of poverty, I just think the "tax the rich" trope is naive and simplistic.
 
Irishdude said:
This is what I found on Google AI:

The U.S. poverty rate in 1956 is estimated to have been around 22% to 25%, based on figures from the 1950s. Data shows a national average poverty rate of 24% in 1959, and some sources point to 22% as a historical high rate during the 1950s.
  • Estimated rate: The rate is estimated to be between 22% and 25%.
  • 1959 national average: The average poverty rate across the states was 24% in 1959.
  • High-end estimate: Some sources cite 22% as the highest poverty rate on record, occurring in the 1950s.
  • Regional variation: Poverty was not evenly distributed, with some states like Mississippi having a rate of 54.5% in 1959.
BTW I'm not a fan of poverty, I just think the "tax the rich" trope is naive and simplistic.
Click to expand...
I can't find any supporting data for this AI info though. Can you?

Whatever the poverty rate was in the 1950s, I think we can agree that homelessness wasn't the issue it is today. People may have been poor, but many lived rurally (e.g., Mississippi) with access to more resources than exist today. They had larger pieces of land and the skills to grow/hunt food. Hand pump wells brought free water, phones weren't a necessity, firewood was free for the harvesting, and utility bills - if they had them - weren't the budget busters they are today.

I will disagree with you about the "tax the rich" trope. Their riches came from the pockets of fellow Americans or the harvesting of mineral/oil rich resources of this country. Contributing a sizeable percentage of those riches back to the kitty is not an unreasonable expectation.

Elon Musk's net worth is over half a trillion dollars. He's not known for his propensity to help the poor, so if he's forced to recirculate some of that money via taxes on himself and his companies, I can live with that.

The rich create the laws, including the loopholes that benefit themselves. Very convenient how that works out, doncha think?
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top