Latest Breaking News

JPZenger

(6,819 posts)

71. Most states removed asset limits because so many newly unemployed

Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:39 PM

Jan 2012

There are many people who become suddenly unemployed. States were so overwhelmed with formerly middle class applicants who needed immediate assistance that most states removed asset limits in recent years, according to the Phila. Inquirer article.

Yes, there should be asset limits to address the rare person with the million dollar house or the recent lottery winnings. But $2,000 is a pittance. You have to become one step away from being homeless before you can get FEDERAL food stamp money.

The ironic thing is: this will actually cost Pa. taxpayers more. The state is mainly responsible for the administrative costs, while the feds pay for the actual food assistance. So, the state will increase their administrative costs to check out a few dollars here and there.

If the state wants to really reduce costs, hire some aggressive fraud investigators.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pennsylvania to impose asset test for food stamps [View all] kpete Jan 2012 OP

Du rec. Nt xchrom Jan 2012 #1

thanks xchrom kpete Jan 2012 #13

Let's asset test the morons who come up with these ideas. hobbit709 Jan 2012 #2

their money came from you and me barbtries Jan 2012 #10

But who else pays them something hobbit709 Jan 2012 #55

Sounds like a great way of ensuring people have to depend on assistance forever theAntiRand Jan 2012 #3

$2,000 is about enough for a couple root canals. n/t Ian David Jan 2012 #4

not if you need a crown to go with that root canal leftyohiolib Jan 2012 #18

I had two root canals last spring - they cost $1500 apiece dflprincess Jan 2012 #92

$2000 has been the FEDERAL limit for assets since the 1970s happyslug Jan 2012 #76

These morons keep telling poor people to save, yet... Odin2005 Jan 2012 #5

Oh, Odin2005 - they're telling everyone to save dflprincess Jan 2012 #94

dflprincess, you're supposed to do both! boppers Jan 2012 #113

*shakes head* Brigid Jan 2012 #118

Did we asset test the banksters before we bailed them out? I bet they had way more than $2,000. fasttense Jan 2012 #6

+99 Trillo Jan 2012 #7

We asset tested the *banks* before we bailed them out, yes. boppers Jan 2012 #112

To get benefits, the poor have to sell the rest of their stuff... sadbear Jan 2012 #8

Get your tin cans and start choosing your begging corners. graywarrior Jan 2012 #9

Way too low JPZenger Jan 2012 #11

My brother became disabled with a broken shoulder and all he got was food stamps Kolesar Jan 2012 #12

PA Penalizes Savings RobinA Jan 2012 #43

Maybe a time delay? Confusious Jan 2012 #80

Agree, horribly low. Most people here in the North East need that much in their account just to be harun Jan 2012 #38

That's what I thought, too Alcibiades Jan 2012 #65

I am afraid this country is beyond repair. sarcasmo Jan 2012 #14

I have been thinking the tomg Jan 2012 #31

+1,000 n/t LarryNM Jan 2012 #90

Me too. nt snappyturtle Jan 2012 #100

Me three. n/t cutlassmama Jan 2012 #111

The rich people just HATE anyone in need of help actually getting help. Atman Jan 2012 #15

I have experience in 3 states, and they ALWAYS count cash and cars.. Viva_La_Revolution Jan 2012 #16

Yes, I believe in some states it has. EC Jan 2012 #21

So you can own three+ houses and still get food stamps? While I agree that the asset limit should jwirr Jan 2012 #49

Well, they didn't ask how many homes. EC Jan 2012 #51

Most states removed asset limits because so many newly unemployed JPZenger Jan 2012 #71

That's very true PRETZEL Jan 2012 #74

That is true. I was thinking that all of a sudden we drop the means tests for assets when the jwirr Jan 2012 #77

Assets could include furniture and other household goods. Should a person have to sell their pnwmom Jan 2012 #79

Speaking as somebody who was homeless, and lived out of a car for a year: boppers Jan 2012 #114

A dining room isn't a luxury in a little house with no eating space in the kitchen. pnwmom Jan 2012 #117

We've been discussing alot of these changes for a while PRETZEL Jan 2012 #17

Just process the poor and unemployed into Soylent Green. onehandle Jan 2012 #19

I don't think that will eliminate too many from EC Jan 2012 #20

Thats fine.... Klukie Jan 2012 #22

This is the same amount that social security limits for SSI Jkid Jan 2012 #23

Or we save the money under the table. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #95

I thought there always has been an asset test. That's nothing new. shraby Jan 2012 #24

This is how it is in Wisconsin too Nikia Jan 2012 #25

Not to worry ... JJW Jan 2012 #26

I don't know where the limits should be set, but I'm OK with this idea in principle. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #27

That's called "fraud" KamaAina Jan 2012 #28

No it is not fraud. Nothing in the programs say that you have to work enough hours a week to get jwirr Jan 2012 #53

She wasn't worried about her hours; she was worried about her income Orrex Jan 2012 #82

That is not fraud. When working with special ed clients who have jobs we always monitor their income jwirr Jan 2012 #89

I concur--it isn't fraud. It's making a wise use of a public service Orrex Jan 2012 #97

I was poor going to school but every once in a while cap Jan 2012 #33

acutally... maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #36

See KamaAina's comment above. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #44

no, I didn't report her to the police. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #60

I'm calling BS on this story of yours, it sounds exactly like a wingnut stereotype. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #96

I think you made a wrong turn somewhere, you seem to have turned left, when you meant to turn right. rubberducky Jan 2012 #39

you're shaming me for being a democrat in favor of vetting food stamp applicants? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #40

Then why post something so inflammatory? rubberducky Jan 2012 #41

Inflamitory? If there are no guidelines for these programs the banksters would be on them. I am jwirr Jan 2012 #58

the whole thread is over whether or not it's OK to have a vetting process for food stamp recipients. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #59

Perhaps, I should have explained my reasoning better. rubberducky Jan 2012 #106

Based On My 11 Years RobinA Jan 2012 #45

you're correct and reinforcing my point, Mary was getting funds elsewhere and this should've maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #57

If she was a drug dealer Nikia Jan 2012 #63

these tests were defacto only until recenty Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #29

the issue is the low amount of the asset requirement JPZenger Jan 2012 #37

I totally agree Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #52

'the necessity of 2 cars'? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #61

Were you married? Nikia Jan 2012 #64

whether married or not is not relevant unless I'm missing something maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #102

The assett policy is for any family regardless of the number of adults Nikia Jan 2012 #105

that's interesting, can you provide a source? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #108

In can be. Wait Wut Jan 2012 #66

If two adults work at different locations, and there is limited public transit ehrnst Jan 2012 #103

Right, it's the RETURN to an asset test which is bucking the national trend. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #46

if you live in rural PA you will not be able to get to the food bank cap Jan 2012 #30

Go figure JJW Jan 2012 #32

How about nineteen50 Jan 2012 #34

They already do that here Coyote_Bandit Jan 2012 #35

The asset amount is too low, but Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #42

Citation, please Orrex Jan 2012 #83

Sadly I know a family with net worth in the millions that applied and got them. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #84

"That means they have no security at all." boppers Jan 2012 #115

I am pretty sure that my state has had this kind of asset test for many years. We cannot have jwirr Jan 2012 #47

Yeah, some limit. caseymoz Jan 2012 #88

I got a nasty surprise this weekend doodadem Jan 2012 #48

alimony uses a net income scale Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #56

They'd Find It RobinA Jan 2012 #68

Savings, the little people have means the difference... Historic NY Jan 2012 #50

Another fine job by Gov Tom "I take money from known pedophiles" Corbett the Fracker LynneSin Jan 2012 #54

Saving for property taxes would put most people over the $2,000 limit PA Democrat Jan 2012 #62

I know... MadrasT Jan 2012 #67

Yes RobinA Jan 2012 #70

After the sheriff's sale, you can get some food stamps JPZenger Jan 2012 #72

Republicans would be just as happy if half the population starved to death! MarkCharles Jan 2012 #69

Welcome to Pennsylvania: Home of Tax-Free Fracking JPZenger Jan 2012 #73

Good new article on this topic from Phila. Tribune writer JPZenger Jan 2012 #75

What a boneheaded move that will INCREASE dependence on social services Canuckistanian Jan 2012 #78

Actually, this $2000 resource limit was in effect in Mass...in.... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #81

Yes, that seems to be it Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #85

$107 a week, 1973, $428 a month.. I lived well MarkCharles Jan 2012 #93

I feel sorry for younger people Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #109

Back in 1982 when I lost my factory job. BiggJawn Jan 2012 #86

You have to eat your 2002 Toyota Corolla to qualify for food stamps? caseymoz Jan 2012 #87

and this is why DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #91

What if you become unemployed? IDIOTS!! CoffeeCat Jan 2012 #98

If you live in PA and don't have any food, you can always devour fracking chemicals. blue neen Jan 2012 #99

So Pennsylvania will let children go hungry if their parents have more than coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #101

Remember many people are not eligible for unemployment JPZenger Jan 2012 #104

I just don’t understand Gringostan Jan 2012 #107

This was how it was in my day Courtesy Flush Jan 2012 #110

yes, & $2000 in assets - 1 shitty used car. if you have an unshitty used car you're sol, you have HiPointDem Jul 2012 #119

One word: Bling. boppers Jan 2012 #116