What's new
By:

Michigan Man Still Receives Food Stamps After Winning $2 Million Jackpot

Sloanfeld

Sloanfeld

Banned
A Michigan man who won $2 million from a state lottery is reportedly still eligible to receive food stamps.

Leroy Fick of Bay County, Mich., said in an interview with WNEM-TV that he still uses his bridge card at stores despite winning a jackpot on "Make Me Rich!" last June.

"I even called them and asked about the bridge card and (the Department of Human Services) said you can go ahead and keep it if you want to," Fick reportedly told the station.

Fick claims he paid more than half of his winnings in taxes -- leaving him about $850,000 -- according to the station.

State Department of Human Services spokeswoman Gisgie Gendreau told MyFoxDetroit.com that under federal guidelines, lottery winnings are not counted as income if a person receives a lump-sum payment.

Nearly 1.9 million Michigan residents are enrolled in the food assistance program. More than 805,000 are children, according to the Detroit Free Press.

In 2009, the Office of Inspector General investigated more than 2,600 food assistance complaints, finding more than $5 million in fraud.


Read more: https://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/05/...amps-winning-2-million-jackpot/#ixzz1NOIxMR1t

I always thought there was a resource limit for this type of thing.

Defend your government, liberals.
 
adbad-gallery_Napoleon_Dynamite_1.jpg


Lucky!
 
The-Joker said:
I'd rather have a government that defends the weak and down trodden, with some money slipping through the loopholes. Than a government that refuses to give aid to those that need it.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure a single sentence would have sufficed, college guy.
 
Sloanfeld said:
I always thought there was a resource limit for this type of thing.

Defend your government, liberals.
Click to expand...

Obviously it's a loophole that should be closed. This one-off (unless there are multiple lottery winner food-stamp recipients in Michigan) is not an indictment of food stamp programs in general

Would you prefer to let the vast majority of food stamp recipients starve?
 
Marcus said:
Do you really think they'd starve?
Click to expand...

I believe starvation levels would be higher in a world without food stamps and I frankly don't think that point is arguable. There's only one direction for that to go unless you have some very subtle linkage as to how starvation levels would go down when poor people had less food.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I believe starvation levels would be higher in a world without food stamps and I frankly don't think that point is arguable. There's only one direction for that to go unless you have some very subtle linkage as to how starvation levels would go down when poor people had less food.
Click to expand...

Perhaps...but to say the "vast majority" would starve? Maybe you were exaggerating.
 
bordelais7 said:
Perhaps...but to say the "vast majority" would starve? Maybe you were exaggerating.
Click to expand...

I see it could be read that way. I was saying the "vast majority" of food stamp recipients aren't lottery winners and that's why this example isn't an indictment of food stamp programs in general.

I don't know what actual percentage of food stamp recipients would literally starve to death if all food stamp programs were to cease to exist. I feel very comfortable saying that there is virtually no risk that rate would decline and only a risk that rate would rise. I further feel very comfortable saying that greater than 50% of food stamp recipients would face food insecurity; particularly minors.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Which is based on what?
Click to expand...

I'd say that based on my personal knowledge of people on food stamps. My wife's mother, for example. She has a bunch of family that could help her out if she was actually starving, but she qualifies for food stamps, so that's the easier and less humbling route. Another option would have been for her to actually try to get a decent job and work full time hours, instead she does what she knows and feels comfortable with, which is working in call centers part time for just over min wage. She's not a stupid person, either.
 
Gameface said:
I'd say that based on my personal knowledge of people on food stamps. My wife's mother, for example. She has a bunch of family that could help her out if she was actually starving, but she qualifies for food stamps, so that's the easier and less humbling route. Another option would have been for her to actually try to get a decent job and work full time hours, instead she does what she knows and feels comfortable with, which is working in call centers part time for just over min wage. She's not a stupid person, either.
Click to expand...

In other words, purely anecdotal.

There's only a risk of movement in one direction on this one.
 
I think you have to find that middle area between the far left (EVERYONE WILL STARVE) and the far right (EVERYONE IS ABUSING THE SYSTEM).

I would guess that most people who use them need them, to at least some degree.

But that's just my opinion.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Obviously it's a loophole that should be closed. This one-off (unless there are multiple lottery winner food-stamp recipients in Michigan) is not an indictment of food stamp programs in general

Would you prefer to let the vast majority of food stamp recipients starve?
Click to expand...

Isn't evolution all about survival of the fittest? It isn't that hard to get a decent education and get a decent paying job. Simply cut back on things you don't need (laptops, smartphones, xbox 360, etc. etc.) and I bet a lot of the people on food stamps would magically have more money for food.
 
KrazeeEyezKilla said:
Do you have evidence that supports your beliefs here?
Click to expand...

Any basic research will show that, and here's a shocker, giving poor people more food decreases the likelihood that they will starve or be malnourished.

You can listen to a lengthy discussion of the issues involved and the potential impact of a widespread loss of nutritional assistance here: https://onpoint.wbur.org/2009/12/03/food-stamps-and-hunger-in-america

The average monthly benefit for households receiving assistance was $276 in 2009 while the average recipient household's total monthly income was $711. In essence this is roughly 25% of the total cash available to a group who are already, by definition, at or near poverty levels in the United States.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2009CharacteristicsSummary.pdf

If you don't think removing much cash from already cash-strapped households would affect the caloric intake levels of families then I don't know what to tell you.
 
Bronco70 said:
I would guess that most people who use them need them, to at least some degree.

But that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

You and I are in basic agreement.

Hantlers said:
Isn't evolution all about survival of the fittest? It isn't that hard to get a decent education and get a decent paying job. Simply cut back on things you don't need (laptops, smartphones, xbox 360, etc. etc.) and I bet a lot of the people on food stamps would magically have more money for food.
Click to expand...

Ah yes the Welfare Queen rears her ugly head again.
 
Hantlers said:
Solid response. Typical non-answer from you.
Click to expand...

You can't argue with a myth dude, and that's one that popped from Ronald Reagan's mind and into the DNA of an entire political movement. You'd have to be a fool to dispute the idea that there are some instances of fraud. That's true of every insurance system public and private.

But the reality is that, as previously stated, average household income for families receiving benefits under SNAP was $711 per month. Think about rent alone on that one. If you think those people are living a life of luxury and removal of food stamps would have no impact then we're simply not operating in the same universe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top