Are they KIDDING?!?!?!?!?!?!?! PLEASE give me your thoughts on this.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

 

This story is just BEYOND absurd!

[Hankins3]

I know, right? I saw this on FOX earlier today and could not believe it either. I cannot believe some people. :confused:

[BakersDozen]

Just because the state said he could keep the card didn't mean he needed to use it. :glare:

 

I long for changes in the food stamp system and any other system with loopholes such as this. For example, the assistance cards that were given out in CA that ended up being used in casinos was a brilliant plan (sarcasm). Nice going, gov't.

[warriormom]

WOW! HMM, do you think we need to reform welfare?:glare:

[kitten18]

:001_huh::001_huh::001_huh:

[Dinsfamily]

I thought the quote from his lawyer about how it's the state's fault was ridiculous! Really, just because you discovered a loophole means it's ethical to exploit it? Wow!

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Just because the state said he could keep the card didn't mean he needed to use it. :glare:

 

I long for changes in the food stamp system and any other system with loopholes such as this. For example, the assistance cards that were given out in CA that ended up being used in casinos was a brilliant plan (sarcasm). Nice going, gov't.

 

WOW! Can you say need for reform of welfare?:glare:

 

 

EXACTLY!!!! How many people truly need help and are just over the limit and can not get it, and here this MILLIONAIRE get food-stamps. This has me so irritated right now you just don't even know. I know of another homeschool mom from another state who NEEDS assistance as they are about to be homeless and THIS guy is getting assistance while being a millionaire :banghead: ONLY in the United States of America :banghead:

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

I thought the quote from his lawyer about how it's the state's fault was ridiculous! Really, just because you discovered a loophole means it's ethical to exploit it? Wow!

 

 

 

Exactly :cursing: I am sure there are good ethical lawyers out there, but you hear of so many stories like this it just makes you wonder.

[LittleIzumi]

Yeeeeeah, that would NOT work in my state. We have asset limits/reporting requirements.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

Yeeeeeah, that would NOT work in my state. We have asset limits/reporting requirements.

 

 

I thought all states had that :glare:

[jewellsmommy]

That is sooooo wrong!!!! That man should not need someone to tell him that he should no longer use assistance. He should be thanking God or his lucky stars or whatever and looking for ways to give back not continue taking. What is wrong with him? How is the 2 million not enough for him?! He needs free groceries too! :confused::001_huh::glare:

[happypamama]

I could understand if it was only temporary, like until he had to report income again, which I think is once or twice a year in my state. I would still consider it to be unethical of him, though. But I don't understand how lottery winnings are not income -- don't you have to pay taxes on lottery winnings? If so, isn't it income?

[Swirl]

It's been eleven months, he's probably blown it all by now.

[kolamum]

Hmm, that's so weird because when we were in the states and dh got caught up in a massive lay-off they demanded to see proof of our bank accounts. Dad was caught up in the same mess and they DENIED them food stamps because they had a retirement fund.

 

Never mind they were taxed an penalized for touching that money, but because he COULD obtain the money from the account then they could NOT obtain food stamp money.

 

No wonder MI went bust.

[cindergretta]

IIRC, the rules were changed in 2008 to allow people who were laid off to collect food stamps before depleting all of their savings. It was meant to help people bridge a gap in unemployment or underemployment. (The total loss of all savings having long term detrimental affects.) But this is pure exploitation. :glare: We are on food stamps and when dh gets a bonus each December, we report it but it doesn't affect our food stamps because it is a one time payment, not continual. They made it that way to relieve some paper work and so forth because a family gets $1000 one month and then has to turn around and re-apply in 2 months when that money is gone, kwim? With overloaded case workers, it made sense. But then when you read something like this, it starts to sound stupid. :glare: (Think about it - you are a SAHM and your dh loses his job. Before you can qualify for assistance, you have to lose your home, your vehicles, and spend all your savings. Then you are going to need assistance a LOT longer than if you just got a little help until you were back on your feet again. But there always has to be someone who exploits a situation and makes it that much harder for those truly in need. <sigh> )

[MorganClassicalPrep]

WOW. Really?????

 

This is. absurd.

 

I get food stamps. I live on 12K a year - I've had to borrow toilet paper and laundry detergent from friends, but luckily we get them and my daughter never goes hungry. But next time I go up for recertification- I'm going to have to jump through all kinds of hoops to "prove" that I still need the food stamps, because I'm a college student (therefore, not working) and my daughter is now over 5. The rule says that if you are a student and your child is over 5 you have to show proof that you can't afford daycare. (And I'm just waiting to hear- well you should send her to school. :glare:)

 

And yet..... someone who has over a million dollars in the bank still gets it? I mean, besides the whole, government loop hole, obviously someone screwed up here.... what about social responsibility? Whatever happened to feeling some responsibility for caring for you and yours?? Geez. I can't WAIT until I can claim complete responsibility for all that is mine- including the food put on my table.

 

(Then again- just a few days ago I told someone I'd never be a millionaire- I'd be giving it away long before then. Who needs that much money?)

[Pam Wilhelm]

What a joke. When my husband was laid off and unemployed for nearly a year I finally got to the point where we applied for foodstamps (this was in GA)... I was told by the person on the phone that we couldn't get them because we homeschooled and that I should put the kids in school and get a job. Let's not even go into the fact that it was summer and how were the kids supposed to "be in school" and that there were no jobs to be found..... :banghead:

 

 

We never got foodstamps..... "and with God as my witness, I will never rely/hope for government support again." :banghead:

[MelanieM]

I'm going to go with the thought that perhaps this man is making a statement and him doing this will help the system tighten up. Even if he's not doing it consciously, the results would be the same... this silly loophole would be closed.

[FaithManor]

Hey ladies, I have a brief second before heading to the barn and just wanted to say, I LIVE IN MICHIGAN AND THIS CR*P HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

 

Seriously, people have learned how to hide income and shaft the system. We've got three people right here in this town in which both people are full-time employees and their houses are paid off, they drive expensive cars, have big screen t.v.'s, take expensive vacations, etc. all while getting public assistance. As they put it, "Well, it would be tough to save for our vacations if it weren't for the welfare." :banghead:

 

Yet, I know people who desperately need the assistance and can't qualify...guess that's what they get for being honest! :confused:

 

This state is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO corrupt that I think it makes the mafia look honest.

 

Oh, and yes, they've been turned in numerous times. The caseworkers just really do not care. Apparently, they collect their paycheck regardless of their lack of work ethic.

 

Faith - see you guys next week. I'm off to the barn, writing history study guides, studying for art history, helping kids build customized rockets, and canning asparagus.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

That is beyond ridiculous! I've had FS for a long time, and I dream of the day I can walk in and close my case!

 

Closing the case is what this man needs to do. They're not going to argue with him. Write a letter, sign it, mail it. That simple!

[CalicoKat]

and the one who needs that card now is the employee who told to keep it, right?!

[Mynyel]

I don't get it, here in my state (and every other state I know of except the state in this story) everything counts. Money in the bank (ahem 2,000,000 if it was me, which it isn't:glare:), cars, retirement plans etc...

 

I was denied food stamps one because our car was worth too much money. I had to go to a dealership and get it reappraised.

 

I know a single mom of two kids who couldn't get food stamps because she had money in an IRA, they told her to take it out.

 

How are liquid assests (umm which I always thought meant cash) not counted??

[Anita in NC]

I'm confused because, "A family may have liquid resources (cash, checking accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.) of up to $2,000. With one or more family members who are disabled or age 60 or over, the resource limit is $3,000."

 

How did he get around this requirement? Is it that Michigan has a different requirement?

 

I did read the article but I don't understand why 2 million dollars wouldn't count as liquid assets.

[Haiku]

Yes, it's wrong of him to continue using the food stamp card. However, let's consider

 

1) He probably gets a tiny amount in food stamps, amounting to a tiny amount of tax dollars per year that is most likely a fraction of a cent per taxpayer and

 

2) getting all up in arms about it and requiring that assets be counted in food stamp eligibility will result in people who own houses and cars being denied food stamps because they have too many assets. Essentially, we will be saying to people, in order to qualify for food stamps, you have to sell your house and rent an apartment. Which is not always cheaper.

 

When I worked for a social service program that gave medical assistance (not Medicaid), we had a short-lived supervisor who tried to insist that if people had a cell phone or any other expenses that were not 100% necessary for mere survival, they should not qualify for assistance. This was back in the early days of cell phones when contracts did not cost hundreds of dollars a month. This man wanted to disqualify terminally ill people from medical assistance amounting to thousands of dollars a month because they had $40 cell phone bills ... as though that $40 would actually make a difference in their ability to pay their multiple-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars worth of medical expenses.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Tara

[twoforjoy]

Yes, it's wrong of him to continue using the food stamp card. However, let's consider

 

1) He probably gets a tiny amount in food stamps, amounting to a tiny amount of tax dollars per year that is most likely a fraction of a cent per taxpayer and

 

2) getting all up in arms about it and requiring that assets be counted in food stamp eligibility will result in people who own houses and cars being denied food stamps because they have too many assets. Essentially, we will be saying to people, in order to qualify for food stamps, you have to sell your house and rent an apartment. Which is not always cheaper.

 

When I worked for a social service program that gave medical assistance (not Medicaid), we had a short-lived supervisor who tried to insist that if people had a cell phone or any other expenses that were not 100% necessary for mere survival, they should not qualify for assistance. This was back in the early days of cell phones when contracts did not cost hundreds of dollars a month. This man wanted to disqualify terminally ill people from medical assistance amounting to thousands of dollars a month because they had $40 cell phone bills ... as though that $40 would actually make a difference in their ability to pay their multiple-hundreds-of-thousands-of-dollars worth of medical expenses.

 

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

 

The number of lottery winners who would continue to collect food stamps is infinitesimally small. The number of people who might fall on very hard times while owning a home or newer car is much larger, and changing the law so that they'd have to sell those things in order to get aid seems like a very unwise move.

[unsinkable]

This story is just BEYOND absurd!

 

I find it helpful in threads like this if there is some idea of what the article is about. Then I can decide if I want to click on it and join in the conversation.

 

Thanks. :001_smile:

[mommaduck]

If I had won $2M, I would have handed over my card in a heart beat!

 

I don't like that they want to change it to include all assets though. I lived in a state where one county included them (the next county over did not hold it against you). If you owned a car, they wanted you to sell it and report what you got for it. Hello, that car gets people to work, to the hospital, etc. Without the car, especially if you lived in the country, was a way to work yourself out of food stamps. Here, they don't count it against you to own a home or car.

Edited May 19, 2011 by mommaduck

[Denisemomof4]

:leaving:

[Murphy101]

I'm confused because, "A family may have liquid resources (cash, checking accounts, stocks, bonds, etc.) of up to $2,000. With one or more family members who are disabled or age 60 or over, the resource limit is $3,000."

 

How did he get around this requirement? Is it that Michigan has a different requirement?

 

I did read the article but I don't understand why 2 million dollars wouldn't count as liquid assets.

 

 

That was my question.

 

Is it possible he is meeting that requirement? Very often winning the lottery does NOT mean you get $2 million dollars. It means you get what is left after taxes (a huge hunk taken there) divided over 40 or more years of monthly annuity payments.

 

2m - approx 30% in taxes = 1,400,000

divided by 480 pmts

Equals a monthly payment of approx 2916.00 (and I think taxes would also be taken out of each check too? Not sure?)

[Murphy101]

If I had won $2M, I would have handed over my card in a heart beat!

 

I don't like that they want to change it to include all assets though. I lived in a state where one county included them (the next county over did not hold it against you). If you owned a car, they wanted you to sell it and report what you got for it. Hello, that car gets people to work, to the hospital, etc. Without the car, especially if you lived in the country, was a way to work yourself out of food stamps. Here, they don't count it against you to own a home or car.

 

Me too. I remember when FS was like that here and you might as well go ahead and just become homeless bc they would pretty much not help you until you were so bad off that it wouldn't help.

[beccad777]

Ridiculous! Totally unethical.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, it's wrong of him to continue using the food stamp card. However, let's consider

 

1) He probably gets a tiny amount in food stamps, amounting to a tiny amount of tax dollars per year that is most likely a fraction of a cent per taxpayer and

 

2) getting all up in arms about it and requiring that assets be counted in food stamp eligibility will result in people who own houses and cars being denied food stamps because they have too many assets. Essentially, we will be saying to people, in order to qualify for food stamps, you have to sell your house and rent an apartment. Which is not always cheaper.

 

 

 

I don't know. I need more information about this even though I read a couple of other articles about this.

 

He received a lump sum payment of $850,000 after taxes.

 

The articles are conflicting whether money in the bank counts against you as far as federal guidelines for food stamps go or if it's a Michigan waiver allowing the issue.

 

from The Detroit News

But DHS spokesperson Gisgie Gendreau told The Detroit News on Wednesday that under federal guidelines, lottery winners wouldn't be eligible; Michigan was granted a waiver of federal guidelines so assets would not be counted toward food stamp eligibility.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don't count as income. As long as Fick's gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.

He bought a home, car, etc. How much does he have left in the bank?

 

I think you could say that X amount of money in liquid assets makes you ineligible without counting homes, cars, etc. Those other things aren't liquid assets, they aren't cash.

 

eta: I totally agree that HE is wrong and that's it is completely unethical on his part.

[wy_kid_wrangler04]

I don't know. I need more information about this even though I read a couple of other articles about this.

 

He received a lump sum payment of $850,000 after taxes.

 

The articles are conflicting whether money in the bank counts against you as far as federal guidelines for food stamps go or if it's a Michigan waiver allowing the issue.

 

from The Detroit News

He bought a home, car, etc. How much does he have left in the bank?

 

I think you could say that X amount of money in liquid assets makes you ineligible without counting homes, cars, etc. Those other things aren't liquid assets, they aren't cash.

 

eta: I totally agree that HE is wrong and that's it is completely unethical on his part.

 

 

When we lived in Michigan, you can get a VERY VERY nice house for $200,000, especially on the east side of the state. I know that is not the case in other states. So unless he went out and bought a McMansion in which case how could he afford that long term? But then again lotto winners seem to have stars in their eyes (there used to be a show about people who one a TON of money, is that still on?)