/end - Food Stamps = SNAP

jeddy lee

So I work for the State of Alaska at the Division of Public Assistance, ie interviewing people to determine eligibility for programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance (cash welfare) and Food Stamps. Food Stamps themselves for YEARS have not been actual stamps. Most states, if not all, issue them on a debit card, and essentially it's money that can only pay for food.

Problem is, for over half a century they have been known as food stamps nationally, and it is a federally funded program, so it uses all federal regulations with a few state to state exceptions, such as the cost of living determining local income limits (Alaska has rather high cost of living, so Gross income limit for a one person food stamp case is $1384.00 / month)

Now the Federal Government has told us that we are switching the name of food stamps to ______________. That's right, every state gets to make up their own name, for a federal program... As of October 1st, Alaska will be using the new name "SNAP" instead of Food Stamps. This is fresh news, so even my boss's boss does not know exactly what SNAP stands for, but I assume something like Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program. This is going to be a huge debachle because people know the program as Food Stamps, people have always known it as food stamps. Even if they learn to call it SNAP, it's a whole new program out of state.

Really this is more a rant then a question, because it frustrates me that there is no uniformity to the law, particulary in the Federal Government. Symantics are getting out of hand. My specific title was changed twice at the hands of the federal government because they said that a Fact Finder (I'm the guy that essentially screens people to let them know if it's even worth their time to apply) did not addequately describe my job, then they said "Eligibility Screener" would not work because we are not technically allowed to screen people, just advise them, so they had us change it back to Fact Finder.

Argh... Why can't the government be moire concerned about important things, not names and titles.

Yar

That is the downfall of bureacuracy. Maybe the government should stop giving handouts?

mrflippy

So, food snaps?

moniker

jack eddy wrote: »

So I work for the State of Alaska at the Division of Public Assistance, ie interviewing people to determine eligibility for programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance (cash welfare) and Food Stamps. Food Stamps themselves for YEARS have not been actual stamps. Most states, if not all, issue them on a debit card, and essentially it's money that can only pay for food.

Problem is, for over half a century they have been known as food stamps nationally, and it is a federally funded program, so it uses all federal regulations with a few state to state exceptions, such as the cost of living determining local income limits (Alaska has rather high cost of living, so Gross income limit for a one person food stamp case is $1384.00 / month)

Now the Federal Government has told us that we are switching the name of food stamps to ______________. That's right, every state gets to make up their own name, for a federal program... As of October 1st, Alaska will be using the new name "SNAP" instead of Food Stamps. This is fresh news, so even my boss's boss does not know exactly what SNAP stands for, but I assume something like Supplemental Nutrition Aid Program. This is going to be a huge debachle because people know the program as Food Stamps, people have always known it as food stamps. Even if they learn to call it SNAP, it's a whole new program out of state.

Really this is more a rant then a question, because it frustrates me that there is no uniformity to the law, particulary in the Federal Government. Symantics are getting out of hand. My specific title was changed twice at the hands of the federal government because they said that a Fact Finder (I'm the guy that essentially screens people to let them know if it's even worth their time to apply) did not addequately describe my job, then they said "Eligibility Screener" would not work because we are not technically allowed to screen people, just advise them, so they had us change it back to Fact Finder.

Argh... Why can't the government be moire concerned about important things, not names and titles.

Huh, I thought the name was changed to Electronic Benefit Transfer back when the implemented the cards and people just called it food stamps out of habit.

stilist

Meh, here in PA people just use the card and don’t care about the name as long as the money’s there. When I worked register a few years back nobody called them ‘food stamps’ and in-store notices never referred to them as such.

Edit: EBT! That’s what it was.

Cauld

There's some controversy in Minnesota right now over these debit cards. Apparently some of them show charges from other states. Generally they consider Wisconsin and Iowa as OK, but there have been charges from both Hawaii and Alaska. The Republicans generally believe that this is evidence of abusing the program, saying "If they can afford to go to Alaska/Hawaii" they don't need assistance.

I would have to look into it more to see possible explanations and the spending level as a percent of total spending on these programs.

mrflippy

stilist wrote: »

Edit: EBT! That’s what it was.

I always wondered what that was.

Wonder_Hippie

Yar wrote: »

That is the downfall of bureacuracy. Maybe the government should stop giving handouts?

Hurck.

Also: isn't "/end" redundant?

jeddy lee

EBT is the way of issuing it and paying. The program itself was still called Food Stamps. On all applications, it still list's food stamps as one of the programs you can apply for, and all related manuals/policy/notices/program registrations use Food Stamps. This is going to be a big overhaul.

kildy

I would find it funny if all the states just chose to call it food stamps or whatever still.

Speaker

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

DiscoZombie

Speaker wrote: »

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

I cannot speak for him, but I believe it's because the name change is going to do nothing but confuse people, and the time and effort spent on the name change could probably be better spent, well, improving the program somehow instead.

Raggaholic

DiscoZombie wrote: »

Speaker wrote: »

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

I cannot speak for him, but I believe it's because the name change is going to do nothing but confuse people, and the time and effort spent on the name change could probably be better spent, well, improving the program somehow instead.

Not really. They've changed the name of welfare from "welfare" to "something (I can't remember)" to "TANF" and now their about to change it again.

It doesn't confuse the people getting it, as it all translates to "free money from the government that I don't have to do anything except continue to be a drain on society to earn."

jeddy lee

Speaker wrote: »

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

Because it's a huge pain in the ass and will cause signifigant amount of errors in case processing, and millions of dollars of government money to do something so stupid and needless. Atleast if all programs were named the same, it would be easier to communicate with other states.

The amount of notices to be changed, wasted applications that will have to be changed, manuals that need to be changed... It is really, really dumb to do this on a whim. And again, uniformity between states on a Federal Law just makes sense. You wouldn't call "Man Slaughter" something different in Georgia, it's the same damn thing, recognized federally.

Plus, SNAP just sounds dumn, and like I'm trying to make light of someones desperate situation "Oh, yeah, we don't issue food stamps any more, but we do have the SNAP! Program to help your family out!"

Raggaholic

jack eddy wrote: »

You wouldn't call "Man Slaughter" something different in Georgia, it's the same damn thing, recognized federally.

Not a great example, as crimes are called different things in different states. First degree murder? Capital murder? Class A Murder? It actually gets worse for manslaughter.

Dman

Yeah I've noticed if a new political party takes power they sometimes change the names of programs and what not for no reason. If it works, don't fuck with it. If it doesn't work and your making radical changes to it, then fine, change the name, but changing the name just for shits and giggles is a waste of my tax dollars.

jeddy lee

Raggaholic wrote: »

jack eddy wrote: »

You wouldn't call "Man Slaughter" something different in Georgia, it's the same damn thing, recognized federally.

Not a great example, as crimes are called different things in different states. First degree murder? Capital murder? Class A Murder? It actually gets worse for manslaughter.

Damn it... fine. Uhhh... You wouldn't call Deportation something different in each district if I.C.E.?

moniker

Raggaholic wrote: »

DiscoZombie wrote: »

Speaker wrote: »

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

I cannot speak for him, but I believe it's because the name change is going to do nothing but confuse people, and the time and effort spent on the name change could probably be better spent, well, improving the program somehow instead.

Not really. They've changed the name of welfare from "welfare" to "something (I can't remember)" to "TANF" and now their about to change it again.

It doesn't confuse the people getting it, as it all translates to "free money from the government that I don't have to do anything except continue to be a drain on society to earn."

For 2 consecutive years at a maximum and no more than 5 years overall.

Raggaholic

moniker wrote: »

For 2 consecutive years at a maximum and no more than 5 years overall.

Yeah, only it's not. I currently work at a Prosecutor's office in the IV-D Division. Basically, it's child support enforcement. We automatically do it if someone has been on assistance in our state.

Just today I've already come across two people who have been on for well over five years. There are many a way around the reform caps. If you have nothing to do all day but sit around and think about them (or ask your friend who is getting over how they did it) then boom. The caps won't apply to you.

jeddy lee

Raggaholic wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

For 2 consecutive years at a maximum and no more than 5 years overall.

Yeah, only it's not. I currently work at a Prosecutor's office in the IV-D Division. Basically, it's child support enforcement. We automatically do it if someone has been on assistance in our state.

Just today I've already come across two people who have been on for well over five years. There are many a way around the reform caps. If you have nothing to do all day but sit around and think about them (or ask your friend who is getting over how they did it) then boom. The caps won't apply to you.

Yeah, and also the TANF program is a program a lot of states use, but not all. So the 5 year term does not apply to all states, and even if you do end up on the full 5 years, you can still apply for extensions. I would say though, that if you are living off the system without a job, it's not without penalty we do enforce a minimum requirement of "if you don't work, you're going to come and look for jobs for atleast 20 hours a week".

Also, I could not imagine a family of 4 living off a maximum of $923.00 per month. You have to REALLY enjoy not working for that to ok for you. Even with HUD or Section 8 in Alaska, you still would have to pay atleast $400.00 - $500.00 for a low income 2 bedroom appartment. $923.00 does not even cover my rent at my appartment. It does suck when people sponge off the system, but it's harder for them to do so than you think. What sucks is that someone making $8.50 p/h working full time would make less than the combined amount him, a wife and four kids would recieve making $0.00 per month on Food Stamps and TANF. Granted they could make that $8.50 p/h and also recieve Food Stamps for a family of 4 and that would be more advantagious...

GoodOmens

mrflippy wrote: »

stilist wrote: »

Edit: EBT! That’s what it was.

I always wondered what that was.

Same here. I always figured it was some archaic name for debit cards.

Feral

Yar wrote: »

Maybe the government should stop giving handouts?

Letting people starve is clearly better.

Speaker wrote: »

I don't care about the name change.

Why do you care about the name change again?

Assistance programs are confusing enough as it is. The people like Raggaholic mentioned who can game the system are not the people welfare programs are supposed to help. If you're somebody who's been working most of your life, and you've fallen on hard times, just figuring out what the different systems are and how to get on them can be pretty daunting.

And as assistance programs become more byzantine, more avenues open up for people like Raggaholic's welfare queens to slip through unnoticed... while honest people who aren't used to being broke and unemployed find it more difficult to get the help they need.

For the most part, though, I'm not really worried about the welfare queens. Raggaholic knows two people who have been on TANF for more than five years. Yeah, that $31 a week those two whole people are getting doesn't exactly break my heart.

Dyrwen66

Eh, I had to use food stamps for a few months last year and it was a real help. They gave my wife and I about 160$ a month, and since our income was probably below a $1000 a month, that was killer useful. Unfortunately it's tricky getting them again, since the wife's unemployed and I'm having a bitch of a time finding more work myself. They require both people to be working somewhere, at least, which I understand, but still.. kinda snowballs the hunger.

I'd imagine if each State can change the name to whatever they want, many might well just name it what it used to be. Arguably "food stamps" tends to be what everyone calls them anyway, since EBT sounds stupid. People need something called "Food help/ Food assistance/ Food stamps" or just something to do with food, for no one to get thrown off and the process to continue without much change.

Edit: And come to think of name changes, I've had trouble remembering exactly what welfare would be for awhile now. We can barely pay our rent this month, probably won't be able to, and HUD only seems to help those in already HUD based housing; while TANF only helps people with kids, by the looks of it.

Sentry

hmm... maybe they are trying to end the stigma of the program by changing the term "food stamps." Really, the guilt and shame of being on the program is the equivalent of kicking someone while they are down.

Raggaholic

jack eddy wrote: »

I would say though, that if you are living off the system without a job, it's not without penalty

Not us. The only time you get penalized is when you won't co-operate with our office. I'm not in the welfare office, but we work with them a lot and the impression that I get is that there is no "have to look for a job" requirement.

Also, I could not imagine a family of 4 living off a maximum of $923.00 per month. You have to REALLY enjoy not working for that to ok for you.

Except that you're not just getting the 923.00 payout. You also get foodstamps, which takes out your largest monthly variable expense. Section 8? There goes rent. If not, we have this thing called "Township" which is basically emergency assistance. Can't pay your rent or bills? Township will do it for you. It was started as an emergency thing, but township will now pay bills in perpetuity.

Now, this isn't to say that the majority of the people on assistance are scamming the system, but I would be surprised if it was less than 30%.

Feral wrote:

while honest people who aren't used to being broke and unemployed find it more difficult to get the help they need.

I'm almost in favor of scrapping the whole system because the "hard timers" aren't even the ones getting the help most of the time. But then again, I'm pretty hard hearted. The program needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.

[edit: for clarification on the last point]

Raggaholic

Feral wrote: »

For the most part, though, I'm not really worried about the welfare queens. Raggaholic knows two people who have been on TANF for more than five years. Yeah, that $31 a week those two whole people are getting doesn't exactly break my heart.

Those are two people who have come across my desk TODAY. A Friday. A day in which my productivity falls to 5% of your average "state employee." In other words, maybe four files have come across my desk today. And I don't see nearly all of the files. Just the ones that have a) gotten paternity and child support judgments that need to be calculated for arrears because an action (ie. someone came in) is going to be taken on them.

Not only that, but our average monthly payout I'm sure is closer to $375. It breaks my heart.

I don't see anything wrong with the programs in theory. The problem is when you bring out the application, everything goes to pot. I tried to get food stamps during my first year of law school. I was automatically denied because I was a full time student. That makes NO sense, as I would be most likely the population that was going to pay the taxes to support the program.

Feral

Raggaholic wrote: »

Except that you're not just getting the 923.00 payout. You also get foodstamps, which takes out your largest monthly variable expense. Section 8? There goes rent. If not, we have this thing called "Township" which is basically emergency assistance. Can't pay your rent or bills? Township will do it for you. It was started as an emergency thing, but township will now pay bills in perpetuity.

I don't know what township is, but in my county, Section 8 has a waiting list over 3 years long. And it doesn't knock out rent entirely, just reduce it a little bit. And you have to be a resident of the county for the entire waiting list period. So if you're staying with a family member for two years, and then that family member kicks you out, and the only other place you can find housing is in the next town across county lines, you have to reapply to Section 8 in your new county of residence.

Granted, I do live in one of the most impacted housing markets in the nation (San Mateo County, adjacent to San Francisco to the south). Hell, the homeless shelters have waiting lists 12 months long.

Raggaholic wrote: »

Now, this isn't to say that the majority of the people on assistance are scamming the system, but I would be surprised if it was less than 45%.

I dunno. "Scamming" might mean one of two or three things. It might mean that the person receiving the support provided fraudulent information about their residency or income. If that's the case, fuck them. Or it might mean that they've applied for extensions that they don't really 'deserve.' That's a value judgment, though, and somewhat subjective - just because somebody appears smart and able-bodied doesn't necessarily mean they're able to work, or that there are opportunities available to them.

But I'm sympathetic, because I think the systems in general are more conducive to the lifetime cheaters and the gamers than people who need help for a little while.

Raggaholic wrote: »

Feral wrote:

while honest people who aren't used to being broke and unemployed find it more difficult to get the help they need.

I'm almost in favor of scrapping the whole system because the "hard timers" aren't even the ones getting the help. But then again, I'm pretty hard hearted.

I believe very strongly in welfare reform because I don't think the welfare systems (note the plural: people who talk about welfare as one big monolithic entity always strike me as being disconnected from reality) do what they're supposed to do at all. As I've mentioned before on this forum, they're not safety nets that catch you so much as spider's webs you get tangled up in. They are, for the most part, hard to obtain and easy to maintain; and they do not in general promote upward mobility.

Feral

Raggaholic wrote: »

Feral wrote: »

For the most part, though, I'm not really worried about the welfare queens. Raggaholic knows two people who have been on TANF for more than five years. Yeah, that $31 a week those two whole people are getting doesn't exactly break my heart.

Those are two people who have come across my desk TODAY. A Friday. A day in which my productivity falls to 5% of your average "state employee." In other words, maybe four files have come across my desk today. And I don't see nearly all of the files. Just the ones that have a) gotten paternity and child support judgments that need to be calculated for arrears because an action (ie. someone came in) is going to be taken on them.

Oh, I misunderstood.

Raggaholic wrote: »

Not only that, but our average monthly payout I'm sure is closer to $375. It breaks my heart.

Sorry, I was thinking of EBT. Maximum weekly payout for EBT is $31/week.

Raggaholic wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with the programs in theory. The problem is when you bring out the application, everything goes to pot. I tried to get food stamps during my first year of law school. I was automatically denied because I was a full time student. That makes NO sense, as I would be most likely the population that was going to pay the taxes to support the program.

Yep, exactly.

Disability is the worst. I could rant about it right now but I'll save you guys the pain.

jeddy lee

Raggaholic wrote: »

Feral wrote: »

Not only that, but our average monthly payout I'm sure is closer to $375. It breaks my heart.

God, I wish the average TANF monthly payout were that up here. I would say average in AK is double that. Then again, as a state we just solve everything with money. Rather than do something permanantly about the increased cost of energy, the state just decided every person is getting an extra $1200.00 cash, on top of their Permanant Fund Dividend we get every year, which is looking to be $2000.00 this year. Come October, the state is going to give me $3200.00 for living in Alaska.

DeShadowC

A little bit random, mainly just curiosity but is "SNAP" an acronym?

jeddy lee

DeShadowC wrote: »

A little bit random, mainly just curiosity but is "SNAP" an acronym?

Yeah, but no one seems to know exactly what for. Suck Nipples of America Plan?

DeShadowC

state nutrition action plans?

jeddy lee

DeShadowC wrote: »

state nutrition action plans?

No, because it's federal, just each state gets to name it. I imagine it will be Supplemental Nutriotion Aid Program.

DeShadowC

I'm curious if this is a decision that had to be passed by congress and if so who can we shoot for starting such a bill.

PantsB

jack eddy wrote: »

Raggaholic wrote: »

Come October, the state is going to give me $3200.00 for living in Alaska.

Is it worth it?

I don't mind the cold, but damn living in Alaska has to be damn inconvenient.

To be more on topic: Bureaucracy tends to overvalue minutia and conservatives preferring people starve than being given sustenance level assistance is boring.

Yar

Super Nummy-nummy; Ate Peas

jeddy lee

PantsB wrote: »

jack eddy wrote: »

Raggaholic wrote: »

Come October, the state is going to give me $3200.00 for living in Alaska.

Is it worth it?

I don't mind the cold, but damn living in Alaska has to be damn inconvenient.

That depends. To raise my kids here? Absolutely. But I don't have kids, and I don't do winter sports, and the first half of my life was traveling, and the second half has been here in Alaska, so I couldn't really imagine wanting to live anywhere else in the US, but I do want to travel a lot. As long as you take a vacation once or twice a year, it's a pretty damn good state to live in. Also lots of do it yourself kind of attitude, so there is a LOT of local art from music to painting and so on, plus a lot of really unique business.

Not to mention some of the most varried landscape in any state.

Kind of a bitch that there are no roads from any of our 3 largest cities to our capital. That's kind of dumb.

Raggaholic

Feral wrote: »

I don't know what township is, but...

Township is an example of government waste. Hmmm... our state is divided into counties. But it's also divided into townships. So, why not have elected offices for both, even though they overlap. County Assessor AND Township Assessor. County board AND Township board. You get the idea.

But as I said, they primarily deal in "emergency" bill pay, even though they pay bills in perpetuity. They will pay your rent, electric, water, sewage... maybe even your home phone. So between Section 8, Township, and TANF, you have every monthly bill paid PLUS your monthly payout.

in my county, Section 8 has a waiting list over 3 years long. And it doesn't knock out rent entirely, just reduce it a little bit. And you have to be a resident of the county for the entire waiting list period. So if you're staying with a family member for two years, and then that family member kicks you out, and the only other place you can find housing is in the next town across county lines, you have to reapply to Section 8 in your new county of residence.

Granted, I do live in one of the most impacted housing markets in the nation (San Mateo County, adjacent to San Francisco to the south). Hell, the homeless shelters have waiting lists 12 months long.

Yeah we have the crazy section 8 waiting list as well, but like everything else, there is a work around. There also is no limit, so you'll have people collecting Section 8 forever in this city. Do they pay the full payment? No, but damn near. My dad rents a house to a Section 8'er in Chicago. Monthly rent? $1400. Her portion? $95.

I dunno. "Scamming" might mean one of two or three things. It might mean that the person receiving the support provided fraudulent information about their residency or income. If that's the case, fuck them. Or it might mean that they've applied for extensions that they don't really 'deserve.' That's a value judgment, though, and somewhat subjective - just because somebody appears smart and able-bodied doesn't necessarily mean they're able to work, or that there are opportunities available to them.

I will agree that you can't judge a book by its cover on this. You're absolutely right. But when you start dealing with the people...

I believe very strongly in welfare reform because I don't think the welfare systems (note the plural: people who talk about welfare as one big monolithic entity always strike me as being disconnected from reality) do what they're supposed to do at all. As I've mentioned before on this forum, they're not safety nets that catch you so much as spider's webs you get tangled up in. They are, for the most part, hard to obtain and easy to maintain; and they do not in general promote upward mobility.

I may be guilty of talking about it as one monolithic entity, but that's because I believe the entire system is broken and the various systems are broken in the same place, if you will. Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those "Yeah Reagan, you tell those damn welfare queen" guys. I deal with this day in and day out. The system is RIPE for exploitation if you're willing to exploit it, and a ton of people who come across my desk are exploiting it.

And yeah, don't even get me started on SSI and SSD. There is no fucking way that, for the simple fact that you are "depressed*," you should be making more off of the government than your goddamn case worker.

*Yes, I know that there are many people on SSI or SSD who need it for seriously debilitating conditions.

Feral

Raggaholic wrote: »

Yeah we have the crazy section 8 waiting list as well, but like everything else, there is a work around. There also is no limit, so you'll have people collecting Section 8 forever in this city. Do they pay the full payment? No, but damn near. My dad rents a house to a Section 8'er in Chicago. Monthly rent? $1400. Her portion? $95.

I don't understand this at all. First off, here, there are no workarounds or exceptions to the waiting list. Period. They are very hardcore about that - they don't care if you're living on a sidewalk.

Secondly, here, the calculations for Section 8 are simple. The family is expected to pay 30% of their income for rent, and the maximum voucher amount is 90% of the fair market value of the rental unit.

If your area calculates things the same way, that means that your dad's tenant makes $317 per month, and she's renting a house with a fair market value of $1450/mo. $317 per month could come from TANF, so that makes sense. But do houses usually rent for that little in Chicago?

Raggaholic wrote: »

And yeah, don't even get me started on SSI and SSD. There is no fucking way that, for the simple fact that you are "depressed*," you should be making more off of the government than your goddamn case worker.

It is virtually impossible to get on Social Security disability for depression. Also, disability payouts average $800 per month. In California, if you're on Social Security disability, you can also get state disability, which is usually around $300 per month.

My issue with SSI disability is that it's too hard to obtain, not too easy. It takes years, and if you have any income during that period of time it's counted against you. If you were married for any period of time, your spouse's income is counted against you - even if you're no longer married. If you work at all - even part-time or on a flexible schedule - it's counted against you.

I dunno, I've dealt with all these systems in the past and for the most part they're like scaling brick walls, in the dark, with no rope. One wrong move and you have to start over. These stories of people managing to get thousands of dollars per month from the government are so far beyond my experience that I have a lot of trouble believing them. That's not to say that you're lying, Ragga, I don't think you are, but either I'm not getting the whole story or California just really sucks.

jeddy lee

Feral wrote: »

My issue with SSI disability is that it's too hard to obtain, not too easy. It takes years, and if you have any income during that period of time it's counted against you. If you were married for any period of time, your spouse's income is counted against you - even if you're no longer married. If you work at all - even part-time or on a flexible schedule - it's counted against you.

Yeah, no kidding. Up here it's pretty much assumed no matter the disability, expect to be denied and force an appeal. People wait YEARS for that disability, and we're talking people with SERIOUS illness/disabilities.

Raggaholic

Feral wrote: »

I don't understand this at all. First off, here, there are no workarounds or exceptions to the waiting list. Period. They are very hardcore about that - they don't care if you're living on a sidewalk.

Yeah, that was bad sentence structure on my part. I didn't mean there was a work around for the lists, but work arounds with the entire system. Transferal of benefits to children. Multiple "head of households" under one dwelling. Things of that nature. I know those waiting lists are firm.

Secondly, here, the calculations for Section 8 are simple. The family is expected to pay 30% of their income for rent, and the maximum voucher amount is 90% of the fair market value of the rental unit.

If your area calculates things the same way, that means that your dad's tenant makes $317 per month, and she's renting a house with a fair market value of $1450/mo. $317 per month could come from TANF, so that makes sense. But do houses usually rent for that little in Chicago?

They do off 103rd and Stoney Island. We're not talking about a house in the North Suburbs here.

It is virtually impossible to get on Social Security disability for depression. Also, disability payouts average $800 per month. In California, if you're on Social Security disability, you can also get state disability, which is usually around $300 per month.

My issue with SSI disability is that it's too hard to obtain, not too easy. It takes years, and if you have any income during that period of time it's counted against you. If you were married for any period of time, your spouse's income is counted against you - even if you're no longer married. If you work at all - even part-time or on a flexible schedule - it's counted against you.

My ex works for a private mental health facility, and she has at least four clients who are collecting for clinical depression. That's their primary diagnosis. Clinical depression. I know because I'm the ear for every complaint about her job and/or clients (you're allowed to talk about them as long as there is no identifying info). This evidence is more anecdotal than an appeal to authority, but believe me, she complains a lot that two of her clients have monthly payouts greater than her take home.

Is it hard to obtain? Yes. But it seems if you have Medicaid, a private facility will take you on and find an attorney to do your appeal. And then when it goes through, you get back pay for all of that. Yes, I know it's harder than it needs to be for the people that really need it, but look at the alternative.

I dunno, I've dealt with all these systems in the past and for the most part they're like scaling brick walls, in the dark, with no rope. One wrong move and you have to start over. These stories of people managing to get thousands of dollars per month from the government are so far beyond my experience that I have a lot of trouble believing them. That's not to say that you're lying, Ragga, I don't think you are, but either I'm not getting the whole story or California just really sucks.

That's the surprising thing. No one is more gracious than California. No one, and definitely not Indiana. It could be that there is more to the SSI/SSD stories as I don't deal with them directly, but not with TANF. I had a case two days ago where the person had been on for over ten years. Ten years. I know because I had to calculate the case and got a printout (I needed to know if she was on at 10/98 because prior to that, all arrears go to the state). These aren't $50 a month payouts either. I find verifiable welfare fraud all the time (hmm... you want us to enforce this child support order, but the guy provides documentation that he lives with you and the children... and the state is payout out TANF because he's supposedly offering no support and you two are not in contact...).