Snap Pros And Cons

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers food assistance programs that help provide food for low to no income families. It is their goal to increase food security and reduce hunger by increasing access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition education for low-income Americans (Caswell, 2013, para. 1). Some of the current nutrition assistance programs include “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)”(Caswell, 2013, para. 1). SNAP will be the primary nutrition assistance program of the paper at hand. No matter how morally good it is to try to help reduce hunger and increase food security within the United States, there are still many questions regarding issues with SNAP. This paper will be discussing why there is such a strong support for the program, how it helps the United States as a whole, problems with the program, and why some people are against SNAP.

There are many good things about Snapchat. For example I can only talk to my friends, it is fun, and I would let Sophia use it too. For these many reasons, I believe I should get Snapchat.

Today SNAP is the new name of the federal Food Stamp Program. “SNAP stands for

In the United States of America, there is enough food in this country that the total amount of agricultural exports is enough to feed everyone twice over (Dorsch, 2013). The problem is that even though there is so much food in this country millions of people require assistance to purchase the food and feed their families. Dating back almost 100 years, the now called Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) has evolved to keep up with the changing needs of the Country. In 1933 SNAP was built into Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). The AAA was put into law during the great depression. The purpose of the law was to help farmers deal with the excess supply of crops by having the government subsidize the cost. The government would also distribute these crops to relief agencies and local communities (The History of SNAP). In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Food Stamp Act. With this legislation enacted it was now required to purchase stamps. These stamps also had bonus amounts that were determined by income level. In the 90’s and early 2000s major changes were done to SNAP. The electronic benefit transfer (EBT) card was

Most of these families and individuals now are in programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, also known as welfare(National Coalition,2009), Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. These programs provide cash, health care benefits and food for these families and most individuals helping the individuals or families to get back on their feet although some will get denied for such help.

Medicaid, WIC Programs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as “food stamps”, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and HUD which deals with housing are only a few of the programs that are available for the poor and underemployed today. These government programs cost the taxpayers billions of dollars. State and federal government try every year to reduce programs. In Mississippi, Medicaid has been reduced although children and the disabled are still covered. SNAP commonly known as food stamps have also been reduce and restricted to balance both the state and federal government. At the height of the recession, the last few years, has increased the number of single bread winner families seeking help by applying for government welfare programs. We often hear of people selling their food stamps for things that are not approved. These stories are used by the people who do not think that tax money should be used to support people who do not work. Changing the name of “welfare” to TANF has not slowed the

75% of people eligible for the SNAP program actually use it, 44% of all participants are children and ⅔ of those children live with a single parent, 76% of all benefits go to houses with children, 11.9% og benefits go to the disabled, and 10% goes to senior citizens(“SNAP”). 39.8% of participants are White, 25.5% are Black, 10.9% are Hispanic, 2.4% are Asian, and 1% are Native American(“SNAP”). More than half of the recipients are children or the elderly while the rest are unemployed working age individuals, only about 10% of all recipients receive cash welfare benefits(“SNAP”). Andrew Bernstein said, “Because a disproportionate number of black Americans were poor in the late 1960s, and because the Civil Rights Movement of that era was an attempt to redress a century of racial injustices, the governments war on poverty coalesced into a campaign heavily directed towards blacks… disintegration of the family as the single greatest problem confronting black Americans”(Haugen & DeMott). Undocumented immigrants cannot and have never been able to get benefits, documented immigrants can only get benefits if they have lived in the US for five years, but there are exceptions for this including benefits for refugees, children, and individuals staying in the US to avoid persecution in their own country(“SNAP”). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation act (PRWORA) enforced welfare

Federal policy changes of requirements and calculations of benefit level have played a significant role in the rate changes of SNAP take-up over time. In 1978, the rate of SNAP participation among eligible households was 37.8%, a 5.2% increase in participation from 1976. This increase corresponds with the 1977 SNAP policy changes and federal standardizations across states.

The initial program for nutritional support from the government was established in 1964; the program was altered in 1977, and remains the largest federal nutrition program for low-income households (USDA). Census reports from the Department of Agriculture reveal that we more than 47 million low income families rely on the SNAP benefits monthly within the Unites States. However, more than 50% of the recipients are children and elderly residences; about 8% actually receive cash welfare. Approximately 30% of SNAP recipients have earnings, or reside in a household with earnings. Nonetheless, government spending at its highest; money allocated for programs that have little or no monetary return, such as the SNAP program are deemed useless, wasteful, and detrimental to our ever growing capitalist economy. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse

I called to Sheavon, she stated did not understand why she received a denial notice sating she is OVI for SNAP with the income of $6500.00.

In this study, we examine the effect of SNAP on health quite generally, examining self-assessed health (SAH), healthy time, and basic health utilization measures as outcomes. SNAP approach is to model outcomes and participation simultaneously, using exogenous variation in state eligibility to identify SNAP participation. We use this approach for both ordered choices and count outcomes, where the former uses maximum likelihood and the latter maximum simulated likelihood.

The SNAP program is based on the gross income a family makes and does not take into account the expenses that the family has such as school loans, car payments, and even household items such as diapers. Due to this system, many people who are working and making an effort to improve their lives are unable to make progress because this type of

SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, has been in existence since May 16, 1939. The original food stamp program allowed consumers to purchase food stamps, essentially giving them $1.50 for every dollar they spent on food. It was meant to get farm surpluses to urban areas where people were undernourished (USDA). SNAP, or the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, is designed to reduce food insecurity, which can be described as reduced food intake, disrupted eating patterns due to lack of money or

Encouraging better nutrition in school is important because fewer kids would go hungry. In Michigan a child went to pay for his meal and his balance was unpaid so he was denied a lunch. The minute the principal found out he decided to do a school meal program that had students pay later or have lunch for free (Student Denied Meal Because of Negative Balance) This child out of many could not afford a meal and the school did something about it by getting a school meal program so no child will go without food again. The (USDA) U.S. Department of Agriculture is an act that gives money to pay for low-income students’ lunch. Studies show forty present of families are considered low income in the districts (Bass and Free Lunch Programs). This meaning forty percent of families cannot afford a meal for their children and a school meal program will give food to those children who need a lunch. Studies show in Kentucky, which was the first state to enroll in the school lunch program. Low income families are saving around $500 a year (Free Lunch Programs). When these families are saving $500 a year the

assistance to low income individuals and families. An estimate of 1.8 million New Yorkers and a total of 46.3 million Americans participate in the SNAP program. Despite the large number of individuals on food stamp the Census Bureau reports in 2010 3.9 million people were lifted above the poverty line and 5 million in 2012 all because of the assistance from SNAP. However the federal government has threaten to cut back on the budget for SNAP. In January 2014 the Farm bill was proposed which included an 8.7 million cut to the SNAP program for the next 10 years. Obama later signed the bill into law on February 7, 2014 saying that the Bill would help create more jobs, move the economy forward and give Americans more equal opportunity (Resnikoff 1). Despite the government’s reasons for the budget cut 850 thousand households would be losing an average of 90 dollars per month (Resnikoff 1). This is unfortunate because reports have shown that SNAP is not only an effective federal program but it also has a positive outcome for individuals. Even in the previous statistics, going from 3.9 million to 5 million people lifted above the poverty line in only a two year difference is a significant breakthrough for low income individuals. It is often easy to find yourself falling under the poverty line, but harder to pick yourself back up. Many individuals who are against the program believe that being on food stamps makes an individual more government dependent and takes away the drive for