6 ms·

The average SNAP recipient receives about $4 a day and sees their balance run out after just 17 days. This is not enough.

TulliusCicero 6y ago
This is somewhat misleadingly worded: it makes it sound like what they receive each month is 17*4 = $68. The actual average per month is $127/recipient. Arguably this is still insufficient, though.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rabidrat 6y ago
  yeah they get 31*4, but they can only make it 17 days with that. I doubt I could make it even 17 days with only $127.
  - rubidium 6y ago
    I ate plenty well as a grad student on $120 a month. If that’s $127/person that’s plenty for just food. If that’s $127 for a family of 3 that’d be rough.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      That's the average per recipient. The average per household is higher.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jakearmitage 6y ago
Source?
- jakearmitage 6y ago
  Wow. I'm being downvoted because I want to learn more about facts presented?
- ozzyman700 6y ago
  http://www.ctfoodbank.org/about-hunger/take-the-snap-challenge/ http://www.ctfoodbank.org/about-hunger/take-the-snap-challen... took 3 seconds to find this by googling "average snap per month". I could find national numbers from secondary sources that cited federal sources but couldn't easily find a hyperlink to those federal sources. But I am sure just as easy as typing Source? you could find your answer
dsfyu404ed 6y ago
SNAP is not intended to cover the cost of a recipient's entire food needs. The S stands for "supplemental". You can argue that is should cover a recipient's entire food needs but it seems a little misguided to criticize the program for failing to meet an objective it doesn't have. Furthermore, federal programs have to be careful not to do things outside their mandate less they run into territory where they don't have political support and lose funding. SNAP probably couldn't get away with providing the full cost of food even if they were able to.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  They didn't criticize the program, they responded to a post that stated a fact about SNAP and made an apparently associated representation It seems like largely the US has been and will continue to keep people fed. Saying SNAP isn't enough is pretty clearly a response to the representation.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  Clearly, the criticism is not of meeting an objective it doesn't have but of not having the correct objective.
asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago
I don't think SNAP is supposed to always cover 100% of food expenses. If you're near the cutoff point for benefits, you get some allowance, but you're expected to cover some of the food cost from your income. You would of course use your SNAP benefits first, since they are not fungible, so it is not surprising that you would run out before the end of the month. This does not mean that such households are unable to afford food for the remainder of the month, it just means that they have to pay for it themselves. I just went and put some really sad numbers into a calculator and it told me I qualified for $500/mo in benefits for a family of three. This is definitely sufficient to provide three nutritious meals per day for three people anywhere in the country.
- Justsignedup 6y ago
  That's the point. It should. If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) a lot of people will have a HUGE improvement in their day-to-day happiness. This is one of those obvious huge moral positives we can do. The only "down side" is there will never be fear of starvation. Edit: The one progress I can see in a society is when we can basically say that certain problems that people may have... those problems just literally won't exist. - basic housing - 3 meals a day - a basic level of health care with the amount of cash flow in the US there shouldn't be a single person who has to worry about one of those 3. edit 2: I mean any person who "struggles with hunger" which is ~40 mil. Also, that is in itself a terrifying number.
  - Cpoll 6y ago
    > If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) 327,000,000 people * 365 days * $5/person/day = $596,775,000,000 yearly Or $596 billion $693 billion is the Wikipedia number for DoD budget, so that actually checks out. Of course, that's more than "put a dent in the budget," but I'm sure you meant those in need, and not every American (which is the calculation I did).
    - thanksgiving 6y ago
tren-hard 6y ago
I can vouch for this, having grown up on 'food stamps' as well as most of friends it really isnt enough for a family. A few times as an adult I've also fallen on hard times and used snap benefits, it was enough for me as a single guy who can cook and knows to eat cheaply, but its hard and not fun. However where I lived you need a mailing address to get benefits so when I was really down and I was homeless I got no benefits. That's why this meal program in NYC is so great, it says right at the bottom there is no need for registration, it's actually accessible to everyone.
jessriedel 6y ago
Why would we expect the average of 40M SNAP recipients, over 10% of the US population, have their entire food budget provided by the government?
Consultant32452 6y ago
When someone runs out isn't the relevant stat. A person could receive $100/day and still run out in 17 days if they are ridiculous. The real question is can a person reasonably feed themselves on $4/day. I would submit the answer is 100% yes for the vast, vast majority of locations in the US. You can do your own web search for the litany of sites/postings on how to eat on < $1/day. You have 4x that amount in your budget. Here's one sample site: https://www.budgetsaresexy.com/how-to-make-nutritious-meals-for-1-dollar-day-per-person/ https://www.budgetsaresexy.com/how-to-make-nutritious-meals-...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  And from that sample site, they seem to have an abundance of time to exploit sales and an excess of freezer/storage space. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but I have always gotten the impression those "eat cheap" sites are run by stay at home parents with an excess of free time or people using them to generate income.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    I don’t feel like time is the major issue. But fridge/freezer space definitely is. You can prep in bulk and fridge/freeze, but you need that space to do it. Then again, I’ve been eating a lot of rice, dried pulses and stew of whatevers left/on sale lately.
- ball_of_lint 6y ago
  You can feed yourself for $4/day if you already have: - Cooking supplies (pots, pans, plates, silverware, etc) - 1h+ / day of free time to spend on cooking and shopping for food - A fridge and pantry to store food in - An oven and/or stove to cook your food For a significant number of people that cannot afford to feed themselves, one or more of these are compounding factors. By providing meals instead of $, this program is much more equitable.
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    I genuinely don’t know: how common is it for an American that lives in a home (rented/owned/subsidized) to not have a hotplate, fridge/freezer and random assortment of plates, cutlery and pots? Rentals usually include appliances in N. America. Thrift store are usually full of small appliances (people shy away from used blenders or used kettles), unmatched cutlery and plates. Pots may be harder to come by, but a large and small one covers most use cases. Used appliances are usually cheap because of the upgrade treadmill. I understand that coming up with $150 for a fridge or $25 for a hotplate. Maybe we need a better system for those capital costs.
thorwasdfasdf 6y ago
SNAP is supposed to be supplemental no? As, a college student with limited funds, I noticed I could keep my daily food costs down to 1$-3$/day range by eating healthily: It's at least 4 times cheaper than eating at mcdonalds. (and this was in CA, one of the most expensive areas) https://kale.world/eating-healthy-is-four-times-cheaper-than-mcdonalds/ https://kale.world/eating-healthy-is-four-times-cheaper-than...
malandrew 6y ago
When I moved to SF, I was probably eating for $2.50 a day. It's totally possible if you buy 20lb bags of rice and beans.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

This is somewhat misleadingly worded: it makes it sound like what they receive each month is 17*4 = $68. The actual average per month is $127/recipient. Arguably this is still insufficient, though.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rabidrat 6y ago
yeah they get 31*4, but they can only make it 17 days with that. I doubt I could make it even 17 days with only $127.
- rubidium 6y ago
  I ate plenty well as a grad student on $120 a month. If that’s $127/person that’s plenty for just food. If that’s $127 for a family of 3 that’d be rough.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    That's the average per recipient. The average per household is higher.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

jakearmitage 6y ago

Source?

jakearmitage 6y ago
Wow. I'm being downvoted because I want to learn more about facts presented?
ozzyman700 6y ago
http://www.ctfoodbank.org/about-hunger/take-the-snap-challenge/ http://www.ctfoodbank.org/about-hunger/take-the-snap-challen... took 3 seconds to find this by googling "average snap per month". I could find national numbers from secondary sources that cited federal sources but couldn't easily find a hyperlink to those federal sources. But I am sure just as easy as typing Source? you could find your answer

dsfyu404ed 6y ago

SNAP is not intended to cover the cost of a recipient's entire food needs. The S stands for "supplemental". You can argue that is should cover a recipient's entire food needs but it seems a little misguided to criticize the program for failing to meet an objective it doesn't have. Furthermore, federal programs have to be careful not to do things outside their mandate less they run into territory where they don't have political support and lose funding. SNAP probably couldn't get away with providing the full cost of food even if they were able to.

maxerickson 6y ago
They didn't criticize the program, they responded to a post that stated a fact about SNAP and made an apparently associated representation It seems like largely the US has been and will continue to keep people fed. Saying SNAP isn't enough is pretty clearly a response to the representation.
guerrilla 6y ago
Clearly, the criticism is not of meeting an objective it doesn't have but of not having the correct objective.

asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago

I don't think SNAP is supposed to always cover 100% of food expenses. If you're near the cutoff point for benefits, you get some allowance, but you're expected to cover some of the food cost from your income. You would of course use your SNAP benefits first, since they are not fungible, so it is not surprising that you would run out before the end of the month. This does not mean that such households are unable to afford food for the remainder of the month, it just means that they have to pay for it themselves. I just went and put some really sad numbers into a calculator and it told me I qualified for $500/mo in benefits for a family of three. This is definitely sufficient to provide three nutritious meals per day for three people anywhere in the country.

Justsignedup 6y ago
That's the point. It should. If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) a lot of people will have a HUGE improvement in their day-to-day happiness. This is one of those obvious huge moral positives we can do. The only "down side" is there will never be fear of starvation. Edit: The one progress I can see in a society is when we can basically say that certain problems that people may have... those problems just literally won't exist. - basic housing - 3 meals a day - a basic level of health care with the amount of cash flow in the US there shouldn't be a single person who has to worry about one of those 3. edit 2: I mean any person who "struggles with hunger" which is ~40 mil. Also, that is in itself a terrifying number.
- Cpoll 6y ago
  > If we remove the fear of starvation (we can afford to feed everyone twice and barely put a dent in our military budget) 327,000,000 people * 365 days * $5/person/day = $596,775,000,000 yearly Or $596 billion $693 billion is the Wikipedia number for DoD budget, so that actually checks out. Of course, that's more than "put a dent in the budget," but I'm sure you meant those in need, and not every American (which is the calculation I did).
  - thanksgiving 6y ago

tren-hard 6y ago

I can vouch for this, having grown up on 'food stamps' as well as most of friends it really isnt enough for a family. A few times as an adult I've also fallen on hard times and used snap benefits, it was enough for me as a single guy who can cook and knows to eat cheaply, but its hard and not fun. However where I lived you need a mailing address to get benefits so when I was really down and I was homeless I got no benefits. That's why this meal program in NYC is so great, it says right at the bottom there is no need for registration, it's actually accessible to everyone.

jessriedel 6y ago

Why would we expect the average of 40M SNAP recipients, over 10% of the US population, have their entire food budget provided by the government?

Consultant32452 6y ago

When someone runs out isn't the relevant stat. A person could receive $100/day and still run out in 17 days if they are ridiculous. The real question is can a person reasonably feed themselves on $4/day. I would submit the answer is 100% yes for the vast, vast majority of locations in the US. You can do your own web search for the litany of sites/postings on how to eat on < $1/day. You have 4x that amount in your budget. Here's one sample site: https://www.budgetsaresexy.com/how-to-make-nutritious-meals-for-1-dollar-day-per-person/ https://www.budgetsaresexy.com/how-to-make-nutritious-meals-...

boomboomsubban 6y ago
And from that sample site, they seem to have an abundance of time to exploit sales and an excess of freezer/storage space. I'm sure there are counterexamples, but I have always gotten the impression those "eat cheap" sites are run by stay at home parents with an excess of free time or people using them to generate income.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I don’t feel like time is the major issue. But fridge/freezer space definitely is. You can prep in bulk and fridge/freeze, but you need that space to do it. Then again, I’ve been eating a lot of rice, dried pulses and stew of whatevers left/on sale lately.
ball_of_lint 6y ago
You can feed yourself for $4/day if you already have: - Cooking supplies (pots, pans, plates, silverware, etc) - 1h+ / day of free time to spend on cooking and shopping for food - A fridge and pantry to store food in - An oven and/or stove to cook your food For a significant number of people that cannot afford to feed themselves, one or more of these are compounding factors. By providing meals instead of $, this program is much more equitable.
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I genuinely don’t know: how common is it for an American that lives in a home (rented/owned/subsidized) to not have a hotplate, fridge/freezer and random assortment of plates, cutlery and pots? Rentals usually include appliances in N. America. Thrift store are usually full of small appliances (people shy away from used blenders or used kettles), unmatched cutlery and plates. Pots may be harder to come by, but a large and small one covers most use cases. Used appliances are usually cheap because of the upgrade treadmill. I understand that coming up with $150 for a fridge or $25 for a hotplate. Maybe we need a better system for those capital costs.

thorwasdfasdf 6y ago

SNAP is supposed to be supplemental no? As, a college student with limited funds, I noticed I could keep my daily food costs down to 1$-3$/day range by eating healthily: It's at least 4 times cheaper than eating at mcdonalds. (and this was in CA, one of the most expensive areas) https://kale.world/eating-healthy-is-four-times-cheaper-than-mcdonalds/ https://kale.world/eating-healthy-is-four-times-cheaper-than...

malandrew 6y ago

When I moved to SF, I was probably eating for $2.50 a day. It's totally possible if you buy 20lb bags of rice and beans.