• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

TU Curmudgeon said:
Given the economic advantage of mass purchasing, the logical step would be for the federal government to stop handing out money at all and to immediately institute the distribution of standardized food packages. This would enable the federal government to both reduce bureaucratic expenses, increase the food available per dollar spent, and ensure a healthy diet for those in need.

However, that is not the REALLY logical step to take. The REALLY logical step to take would be fore the federal government to stop handing out money at all and to IMMEDIATELY institute a "national mess hall" system where those in need could all be fed with standardized rations, carefully designed to provide the optimal nutrition for the dollars spent, and professionally prepared so as to ensure the minimum waste in food preparation and service.

That "national mess hall" system would also enable the federal government to locate people who were not in the US legally and/or were wanted for the commission of criminal offences (unless those people chose to starve). That "national mess hall" system could also be used to ensure that every area of the country that was short of workers could have workers from an area with a surplus directed to it by the simple expedient of varying the ability of an area to feed those in need (decreasing it if there was a surplus of workers and increasing it if there was a shortage).

If you combined that "national mess hall" system with a mandatory "federal voter ID registration" system, then almost all of the "illegal immigrant problem" would be eliminated over night.

[The above officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
Click to expand...

Don't forget the part about outlawing all private, for-profit food providers. ;)
 
VanceMack said:
This policy was not about alienating the base. It was about getting people out of the socialist/commie mindset that capable able bodied adults should be able to sit at home and suck up government benefits and not work. His base understand that. Most reasonable, intelligent people understand that.
Click to expand...


The complete ignorance of your statements are just unfananible.

The title should be trump ****s the farmers once again.

The snap program is a farm subsidy who were hurting far day one of trumps invasion of the Whitehouse.

This bill screws both farmers, (the few that are still farming under the king of bankruptcy and debt) and the unemployed.

Not to mention small mom and pop grocery stores in rural small towns...

If this is such a fantastic idea you should get a bumper sticker promoting ****ing far ers...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Don't forget the part about outlawing all private, for-profit food providers. ;)
Click to expand...

Those who want food in either greater quantities, wider variety, differing quality, or more speedy delivery under nicer conditions will be able to purchase supplementary food insurance and or keep the grocer they already have (assuming that their grocer decides to continue selling them food). Of course, those whose incomes are too high to qualify them for the "national mess hall" system but are also too low to let them purchase from those private grocers will simply have to fend for themselves.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Those who want food in either greater quantities, wider variety, differing quality, or more speedy delivery under nicer conditions will be able to purchase supplementary food insurance and or keep the grocer they already have (assuming that their grocer decides to continue selling them food). Of course, those whose incomes are too high to qualify them for the "national mess hall" system but are also too low to let them purchase from those private grocers will simply have to fend for themselves.
Click to expand...

OK, I thought you were talking about a national mess hall for all, not as a means-tested public option. :)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, I thought you were talking about a national mess hall for all, not as a means-tested public option. :)
Click to expand...

As I posted

Given the economic advantage of mass purchasing, the logical step would be for the federal government to stop handing out money at all and to immediately institute the distribution of standardized food packages. This would enable the federal government to both reduce bureaucratic expenses, increase the food available per dollar spent, and ensure a healthy diet for those in need.
(emphasis added)
​

For those that the government defines as "Not In Need" there would be no government assistance whatsoever and they would fend for themselves. Those that God wanted to survive WOULD survive and those the God did not want to survive WOULD NOT survive. To interfere in the lives of those that the government defines as "Not In Need" would be to interfere with The Word Of God as "The Bible" only tells us to help those in need (and leaves the definition of what "in need" means up to the temporal authorities [who are actually Chosen By God since nothing happens that God doesn't want to happen]).

[The above theological opinion, has been provided by "Billy Bob's Uniquely Right (wing) Christian -Thal- -Theu- -Thalu- -Thealug- Bible and Divinity School" [a wholly owned subsidiary of Billy Bob's Only True Original Fundamentalist Four-Square Evangelical Revived Reformed Revealed Biblical Church of Jesus Christ The Perfect Arisen Son Of The Living God World Awakening (Just Send Us Your Folding Money Because Worship Should Be Silent) All Aryan White Soul's Salvation, Redemption, and Witnessing Storefront Mission, B-B-Q, Gun & Body Shop. (INC)] where the motto is "God has already told us what to think, and we'll tell you so you don't have to." to the the law firm of Wieselwort, du Plicité, Poco-Escrupuloso, Flerd, and Corrotto LLP, was paid for and has been officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
 
HumblePi said:
Trump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps - Rolling StoneTrump Pushes to Knock Hundreds of Thousands Off of Food Stamps While COVID-19 Death Toll Rises

The USDA wants to remove people from food stamps regardless of the change in the employment environment from coronavirus

While U.S. unemployment claims are shattering an all-time record, due to the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump’s administration is continuing its attempts to throw hundreds of thousands off of the government food-stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell ruled that a change sought by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue was unlawful and blocked the agency from enforcing it. According to a report by the AP on Wednesday, Perdue said that the “USDA disagrees with the court’s reasoning and will appeal its decision.”

But Howell’s “reasoning” was spot-on, and Perdue’s insistence with going ahead with an appeal is heartless in the face of a pandemic.

The rule change that the USDA is looking to put in place would halt states’ abilities to waive certain federal work- and time-limit requirements for SNAP recipients. As a result, the change would remove approximately 700,000 people from SNAP rolls starting on April 1st.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm, I had a sneaky feeling that having a president that doesn't posses the key emotion of empathy might not be a great idea.
Click to expand...

This wouldn't effect people who just stopped working due to the pandemic who will also be getting full pay for no work and possibly more for at least 4 months plus an additional $1200 for nothung, get a f-ing job you f-ing parasites we had full employment for the last 3 years.
 
FreeSpeechRooom said:
This wouldn't effect people who just stopped working due to the pandemic who will also be getting full pay for no work and possibly more for at least 4 months plus an additional $1200 for nothung, get a f-ing job you f-ing parasites we had full employment for the last 3 years.
Click to expand...

Stores, restaurants, shops, and multiple other industries came to a full stop in the NE far longer than any other part of the country. Where are 6 million people supposed to go out and find a job if there are none to be had? People didn't merely 'stop' working because of the pandemic out of choice and if you believe that then you haven't a clue as to what's happening in this country this very minute.

How high and mighty of you to judge these people who are trying to pay the rent and put food on the table for their families. How dare you assume that these millions of people left without a paycheck are somehow using the system. You have a nerve and I must add it's very un-Christian of you to put blame on people trying to survive during a pandemic and keep themselves and their loved ones safe from infection.

People here in New England have been without their paychecks for over two weeks already. People live paycheck to paycheck nearly everywhere. The fact that you don't have enough human kindness in your heart to understand the hardships that people are under right now only proves that you are ignorant of what's occurring in people's lives every day here, and neither do you care to.

Do you understand that the $1200 that some (not all) people will receive may take another six weeks or more? Do you understand that these people don't have $400 cash in reserve for an emergency and even if they did it would have been long gone? How long could you live if all you had was $400? Could you pay your rent, your utilities, groceries and health care for you and your family? The bubble of ignorance and arrogance under which you people live protects you, for now. But it's not going to protect you when reality hits home where you live. You're in for a very sobering awakening.
 
VanceMack said:
............This policy ONLY impacts capable able bodied men and women without families...without dependents, and it ONLY requires that they work at a minimum 20 hours a week...barely part time.
Click to expand...

Who are the capable able-bodied men and women without children that would lose aid?

Parents that don't have primary custody of children_________about 14,500
Youths that have aged out of foster care __________________about 23,000
Low income students without family support_______________about 91,000

That's about 130,000 people that would lose aid. The military spends $2,000,000 on war every minute. If they stopped a war for just 1 minute there would be $18,000 each for the 130,000 that would be denied aid under Trump's plan. Is that so great a savings in a budget of $Bs that we need to take support from people that need it?
 
weaver2 said:
Who are the capable able-bodied men and women without children that would lose aid?

Parents that don't have primary custody of children_________about 14,500
Youths that have aged out of foster care __________________about 23,000
Low income students without family support_______________about 91,000

That's about 130,000 people that would lose aid. The military spends $2,000,000 on war every minute. If they stopped a war for just 1 minute there would be $18,000 each for the 130,000 that would be denied aid under Trump's plan. Is that so great a savings in a budget of $Bs that we need to take support from people that need it?
Click to expand...


Live or die. Succeed or fail. Choose. But FFS stop whining and crying and claiming you cant do anything about your circumstance.
 
Socialism is about equality and in our case, equal protection of the laws regardless of capital even with our form of capitalism. Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States can solve simple poverty and automatically help stabilize our economy.
 
VanceMack said:
Live or die. Succeed or fail. Choose. But FFS stop whining and crying and claiming you cant do anything about your circumstance.
Click to expand...
According to the numbers 91,000 low income students are changing their circumstances by going to college. The kids that just aged out of foster care are 18, out of school, and looking for work.
Maybe the divorced parents without primary custody are doing all that whining and crying you think you hear.

Here are some more statistic:
the average length of time most people get aid of some sort is about 3 years. How Long Do People Receive Assistance?
And according to the only valid study done to determine how much cheating goes on by people getting assistance, the Orange County, CA study of cheating welfare, showed that about 10% of the families getting aid cheated. The most common cheat, was not reporting extra pay from working extra hours.

Helping people living in poverty is not socialism. It's just helping people and it's good economic sense. Countries that don't help people living below the poverty line, stress-out their health care system, have debilitated citizens unable to work, low literacy rate, high death rate, people with no or insufficient education, increased crime and violence and a depressed economy.
 
weaver2 said:
According to the numbers 91,000 low income students are changing their circumstances by going to college. The kids that just aged out of foster care are 18, out of school, and looking for work.
Maybe the divorced parents without primary custody are doing all that whining and crying you think you hear.

Here are some more statistic:
the average length of time most people get aid of some sort is about 3 years. How Long Do People Receive Assistance?
And according to the only valid study done to determine how much cheating goes on by people getting assistance, the Orange County, CA study of cheating welfare, showed that about 10% of the families getting aid cheated. The most common cheat, was not reporting extra pay from working extra hours.

Helping people living in poverty is not socialism. It's just helping people and it's good economic sense. Countries that don't help people living below the poverty line, stress-out their health care system, have debilitated citizens unable to work, low literacy rate, high death rate, people with no or insufficient education, increased crime and violence and a depressed economy.
Click to expand...

There is an interesting calculation that all "welfare" type organizations do and that is (for want of a better term) "cost of loss v. cost of prevention of loss".

It is (almost) possible to reduce "cost of loss" to nil, but, after a certain point, it costs MORE to prevent $1.00 of loss than the $1.00 of loss.

Does that mean that the organization has "institutionalized loss"? If you want to look at it that way, yes it does. However, from a business management point of view the organization has made the "smart" decision not to pour money down a rat hole for no gain.

You might ask yourself why businesses like breweries and distilleries let their employees take "free" product (within limits) and I'll tell you. Because the breweries and distilleries have found that their loss from theft (read as "goods not allowed to be taken but taken by the employees" plummeted and they were actually giving away LESS than the employees had been stealing. In effect the breweries and distilleries were "institutionalizing theft" AND it made good business sense to do so.
 
"Do you think you are powerful? If we don't work ... You won't have any money. You are nobody!"- Chris Smalls, an Amazon employee who organized and led the workers ' strike in New York.

"Chris Smalls is not very smart, he has mental problems"- Amazon

Strange, but some, if not many, businessmen, regardless of the scale of the business, believe that they pay people money, and not people earn money for them.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
There is an interesting calculation that all "welfare" type organizations do and that is (for want of a better term) "cost of loss v. cost of prevention of loss".

It is (almost) possible to reduce "cost of loss" to nil, but, after a certain point, it costs MORE to prevent $1.00 of loss than the $1.00 of loss.

Does that mean that the organization has "institutionalized loss"? If you want to look at it that way, yes it does. However, from a business management point of view the organization has made the "smart" decision not to pour money down a rat hole for no gain.

You might ask yourself why businesses like breweries and distilleries let their employees take "free" product (within limits) and I'll tell you. Because the breweries and distilleries have found that their loss from theft (read as "goods not allowed to be taken but taken by the employees" plummeted and they were actually giving away LESS than the employees had been stealing. In effect the breweries and distilleries were "institutionalizing theft" AND it made good business sense to do so.
Click to expand...

Equal protection of the laws can lower our tax burden by making it more cost effective for potential privateers to apply for more social unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom