changes to federal food stamp program

[Jim in CT]

Trump wants to make some changes to the federal food stamp program, liberals of course are claiming that Republicans want poor people to all starve to death.

The changes? People on food stamps who are able bodied, able minded, who have no children, and who are younger than 50...must do something (work, volunteer, get job training) for 20 hours a week in order to receive federal assistance. States can grant waivers to this requirement for welfare recipients who live in areas with very high unemployment.

Obviously, the change is aimed at people who could EASILY work if they wanted to, but who choose not to.

The argument against this, is what, exactly?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The argument against this, is what, exactly?

RACISTS!!!!

(Figured I’d beat them to it)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

RACISTS!!!!

(Figured I’d beat them to it)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That about sums it up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Do some homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Do some homework Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A vague, baseless insult, from you? Get outta here.

.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

A vague, baseless insult, from you? Get outta here.

.

It’s not an insult it’s a suggestion. Trying to help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Slipknot]

Argument against is that sounds like more government not less because you’d need enforcement, red tape paperwork, privacy issues of medical records for those who can’t work. It is not as easy as Trump seems to make it sound the way you put it.

A while ago I thought there was a call for drug tests, now this
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It’s not an insult it’s a suggestion. Trying to help.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok, tell me what i said, which is incorrect. Because to you, “doing my homework”, seems
to mean “listen to what Rachael Maddow has to say on the subject, and dont question it.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Trump wants to make some changes to the federal food stamp program, liberals of course are claiming that Republicans want poor people to all starve to death.

The changes? People on food stamps who are able bodied, able minded, who have no children, and who are younger than 50...must do something (work, volunteer, get job training) for 20 hours a week in order to receive federal assistance. ( that has always been the rule many states expanded this beyond 3 months ) States can grant waivers to this requirement for welfare recipients who live in areas with very high unemployment.

Now states will only be able to issue waivers if the unemployment rate is over 6%, and waiver applications will require complex data and specificity.Obviously, the change is aimed at people who could EASILY work if they wanted to, but who choose not to.

The argument against this, is what, exactly?

funny way to be fiscally responsible off the backs of 688,000 people for roughly $160 in food purchases for three months they sure are getting over on uncle sam...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

funny way to be fiscally responsible off the backs of 688,000 people for roughly $160 in food purchases for three months they sure are getting over on uncle sam...

so you don’t think that people perfectly capable of working, should be doing something, if receiving federal assistance?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

WASHINGTON—Championing the decision as a way to cut costs and still meet federally mandated nutrition requirements, President Trump announced a plan Tuesday to replace food stamps with a new low-income foraging program. “We have developed a new foraging-based plan that provides qualifying Americans with a small, reusable bag they can fill with whatever they are able to scavenge from alleys, empty lots, or nearby wooded areas,” said Trump, explaining that underprivileged participants in the program would search for food scraps anywhere they can find them, including the dumpsters behind restaurants. “We will also be providing these low-income Americans with charts that explain which rotting foods are still safe to eat, which seeds and berries can be consumed without getting sick, and how to spot insects that are high in protein. Many disadvantaged citizens don’t have access to healthy meals at home, but this program will teach them the self-reliance they need to ensure their basic requirements for sustenance continue to be met.” Trump also proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in which Americans would receive a weekly meal service kit containing pictures of food.

I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

WASHINGTON—Championing the decision as a way to cut costs and still meet federally mandated nutrition requirements, President Trump announced a plan Tuesday to replace food stamps with a new low-income foraging program. “We have developed a new foraging-based plan that provides qualifying Americans with a small, reusable bag they can fill with whatever they are able to scavenge from alleys, empty lots, or nearby wooded areas,” said Trump, explaining that underprivileged participants in the program would search for food scraps anywhere they can find them, including the dumpsters behind restaurants. “We will also be providing these low-income Americans with charts that explain which rotting foods are still safe to eat, which seeds and berries can be consumed without getting sick, and how to spot insects that are high in protein. Many disadvantaged citizens don’t have access to healthy meals at home, but this program will teach them the self-reliance they need to ensure their basic requirements for sustenance continue to be met.” Trump also proposed a Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program in which Americans would receive a weekly meal service kit containing pictures of food.

I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s that reading comprehension thing again
I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

It’s that reading comprehension thing again
I know after the 9 month baby statement, this sounds believable but sorry, it’s the Onion
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i know your post was satire. but the left as a whole is attacking trump for this.

Let’s start this from the beginning. The changes to the law will
require that those who are able bodied, able minded, younger than 50, and who have no children, to work/volunteer/train for 20 hours a week to qualify for federal welfare.

Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?

Ocasio-cortez said her family would have starved due to this, which is a lie as it wouldn’t have impacted her family because they had children. Is it a good idea for her to distort things so badly to criticize?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if you’re able-bodied, able-minded, under age 50, and have no kids....why can’t you spend 20
hours a week earning the welfare that others pay for? Seriously, what’s wrong with that?

i have no problem
whatsoever, helping people
who cannot work. But people who can work, but choose. not to? That’s a very different animal.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim under the current law this is already required.. (20hours) the change is the red tape to extend the benefits and the 6% unemployment rate. Requirements.. 1 or 2 less f 35s fighters would save more money ..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by wdmso

..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

👍🏻
Floridaman won’t do anything about that, he’s the guy who states building income one way for loans and another for taxes.
Sort of the same thing (fraud) but on a larger scale.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim under the current law this is already required.. (20hours) the change is the red tape to extend the benefits and the 6% unemployment rate. Requirements.. 1 or 2 less f 35s fighters would save more money ..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Many of the live-in boyfriends, are boyfriends and not husbands, because the moms get more welfare if they're not married. Growing up I knew three couples were were married in every practical sense, but never got legally married because staying leglly single, allowed the mom to get a bigger welfare check. I knew three families that did this. It's disgusting.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Many of the live-in boyfriends, are boyfriends and not husbands, because the moms get more welfare if they're not married. Growing up I knew three couples were were married in every practical sense, but never got legally married because staying leglly single, allowed the mom to get a bigger welfare check. I knew three families that did this. It's disgusting.

I have a good friend who had a child at 18 she was on welfare for 2 years he went in the army , then he got a State job and they attached his pay to recover the 2 years ..

Here was a guy using the system as it was designed to help in a bad spot short term , and they did this,, some incentive to leave

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim under the current law this is already required.. (20hours) the change is the red tape to extend the benefits and the 6% unemployment rate. Requirements.. 1 or 2 less f 35s fighters would save more money ..

Honestly i wish they put more efforts it kicking out the live in boyfriends..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is one of the financial rabbit holes that the federal government crawls into when it assumes responsibilities that it constitutionally does not have. When it takes on a host of other things that constitutionally should be left to local governments and to individuals, such as various welfare and entitlement programs, then an expectation is created in the people that it is right and necessary for it to transfer to those programs the funds necessary for its constitutional mandates such as spending on the military.

And when both obligations, constitutional and unconstitutional, need more money than the government has, it must borrow it. But the financial burden becomes permanently entrenched, so not only must the borrowing continue and the debt pile up, but it expands even more than the already exponential growth when politicians realize that this slight of bureaucratic hand can be used to pile on even more compassionate sounding vote getting giveaways.

And, naturally, the people now having been trained that it is the federal governments duty to provide the most basic personal needs to those who it deems are incapable of providing themselves, the populace feels that it is only right that it scrape out the money from seemingly over-luxurious things going to the less needy military and give it to those who obviously, so we are told, need it more.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This is one of the financial rabbit holes that the federal government crawls into when it assumes responsibilities that it constitutionally does not have. When it takes on a host of other things that constitutionally should be left to local governments and to individuals, such as various welfare and entitlement programs, then an expectation is created in the people that it is right and necessary for it to transfer to those programs the funds necessary for its constitutional mandates such as spending on the military.

And when both obligations, constitutional and unconstitutional, need more money than the government has, it must borrow it. But the financial burden becomes permanently entrenched, so not only must the borrowing continue and the debt pile up, but it expands even more than the already exponential growth when politicians realize that this slight of bureaucratic hand can be used to pile on even more compassionate sounding vote getting giveaways.

And, naturally, the people now having been trained that it is the federal governments duty to provide the most basic personal needs to those who it deems are incapable of providing themselves, the populace feels that it is only right that it scrape out the money from seemingly over-luxurious things going to the less needy military and give it to those who obviously, so we are told, need it more.

Again when was American acceptable to you??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again when was American acceptable to you??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

1776 but it’s been all downhill from there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again when was American acceptable to you??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I answered that in another thread. But if that was not good enough, then l'll be very specific. It has always been acceptable to me. It has been more than acceptable. It has always been special and good. It has been exceptional. Still is.

Now you can answer my question. Is it necessary for our country to be divided into 50 different states with different constitutions, and all the other differences that make it more difficult to be united than exists already with our personal differences. Are states necessary?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I answered that in another thread. But if that was not good enough, then l'll be very specific. It has always been acceptable to me. It has been more than acceptable. It has always been special and good. It has been exceptional. Still is.

Now you can answer my question. Is it necessary for our country to be divided into 50 different states with different constitutions, and all the other differences that make it more difficult to be united than exists already with our personal differences. Are states necessary?

Why should I answers
question you want answered. To a topic I have never suggested? Like dividing the country .. to occur?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why should I answers question you want answered.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I often wish re-pete wouldn't...

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Why should I answers
question you want answered. To a topic I have never suggested? Like dividing the country .. to occur?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Out of courtesy, perhaps. I answered your question about American being acceptable to me which is a topic I haven't suggested.

And my question is pertinent to just about any topic regarding American politics. Jim may be right. You may be afraid to answer it.