Meals that are skipped

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

SoCal said:

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

Click to expand...

We could just spend less bombing children and have plenty to feed them with. Murica!

SoCal said:

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

Click to expand...

Progressivism, where loafers and takers believe everyone else owes them a living.

SoCal said:

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

Click to expand...

Good. Less welfare programs the better. We ought to be more like Singapore than Europe.

It is not going to be the popular opinion to have, but we should have always questioned the previous rule around around how States applied for exempt status for certain "work eligible adults without dependents" from the steady work requirement standard to receive SNAP benefits.

In the interest of being honest about this the new rule from the Trump administration does not apply to adults who have children or women who are pregnant, and the new rule changes nothing for those with a disability.

Originally the exempt rule was all about local economic conditions being that much worse than State level or National level, and technically that is still in place with the new rule even if reduced given current economic conditions.

While it is not necessarily the nicest way to be about this and I am by no means a supporter of Trump's Administration or Sonny Perdue (Agriculture Secretary) technically he is right. SNAP was never intended to be a permanent way of life for working capable adults. These programs tend to get expanded upon during rough economic conditions and not necessarily updated when conditions change, that in turn leads to dependency on these programs despite economic conditions.

Then you get today's climate where the immediate response from the left is "they are going after the poor."

The *only* issue I have with the rules change on SNAP is no other rule, or program, is being changed to help those people find work who are about to be kicked off SNAP. That is where our comments should focus if the Trump Administration is serious about these "work eligible adults without dependents" actually work somewhere.

Since there are over 44 million SNAP recipients, that is potentially less than 2% of the total recipients, and includes NO children, elderly, those receiving disability, those whose doctor say they are not able to work (due to pregnancy, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, low IQ, and various other reasons).

In many states healthy single adults who provide care for a disabled relative are exempted from the work requirements.

States can receive an exemption for areas with high unemployment, which would reduce the potential. That potential would be if no states qualified for the exemption.

More smoke and mirrors from the liberals.

ocean515 said:

"The changes will move more “able-bodied” adults into the workplace, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said. "​

Progressivism, where loafers and takers believe everyone else owes them a living.

Click to expand...

Reactionaryism, where the rich and their secretaries pay the same tax rate and continue clinging to their stereotype of welfare recipients.

I do not believe anywhere near the majority of welfare recipients would be living on a shoestring if they didn't have to. I don't think a wealthy reactionary who'll work for Don, who suppresses science and is completely out of touch with the inner-city, deciding who's able-bodied enough to hold a job. And is there any question of who ordered this and why (Numnuts to make The Cult happy (political reasons))?

Perdue says, "...the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years...."

But with an unemployment rate of 3.7 are employers actually still looking for employees?

"...economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5%, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.6%, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient..."

Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment

The vast majority of the very rich do not give back anywhere near enough to the country they earn their wealth in. A wealth tax is required to repair and/or maintain our railroads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure they use and need to become rich, to say nothing of Americans on the borderline.

If they don't like it, I suggest they move to a Western European county where they pay real taxes, or maybe they'd be happier moving to Russia and buying as much security and freedom as they can afford...

ocean515 said:

"The changes will move more “able-bodied” adults into the workplace, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said. "​

Progressivism, where loafers and takers believe everyone else owes them a living.

Click to expand...

The progressives are parasites.

SoCal said:

Reactionaryism, where the rich and their secretaries pay the same tax rate and continue clinging to their stereotype of welfare recipients.

I do not believe anywhere near the majority of welfare recipients would be living on a shoestring if they didn't have to. I don't think a wealthy reactionary who'll work for Don, who suppresses science and is completely out of touch with the inner-city, deciding who's able-bodied enough to hold a job. And is there any question of who ordered this and why (Numnuts to make The Cult happy (political reasons))?

Perdue says, "...the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years...."

But with an unemployment rate of 3.7 are employers actually still looking for employees?

"...economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5%, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.6%, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient..."

Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment

The vast majority of the very rich do not give back anywhere near enough to the country they earn their wealth in. A wealth tax is required to repair and/or maintain our railroads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure they use and need to become rich, to say nothing of Americans on the borderline.

If they don't like it, I suggest they move to a Western European county where they pay real taxes, or maybe they'd be happier moving to Russia and buying as much security and freedom as they can afford...

Click to expand...

This is all tripe. You could take 100% of the money from the rich and it wouldn't come close to giving the poor what you think they have a right to.

SoCal said:

Reactionaryism, where the rich and their secretaries pay the same tax rate and continue clinging to their stereotype of welfare recipients.

I do not believe anywhere near the majority of welfare recipients would be living on a shoestring if they didn't have to. I don't think a wealthy reactionary who'll work for Don, who suppresses science and is completely out of touch with the inner-city, deciding who's able-bodied enough to hold a job. And is there any question of who ordered this and why (Numnuts to make The Cult happy (political reasons))?

Perdue says, "...the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years...."

But with an unemployment rate of 3.7 are employers actually still looking for employees?

"...economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5%, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.6%, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient..."

Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment

The vast majority of the very rich do not give back anywhere near enough to the country they earn their wealth in. A wealth tax is required to repair and/or maintain our railroads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure they use and need to become rich, to say nothing of Americans on the borderline.

If they don't like it, I suggest they move to a Western European county where they pay real taxes, or maybe they'd be happier moving to Russia and buying as much security and freedom as they can afford...

Click to expand...

20% of all food stamp recipients live on zero gross income, month after month, year after year. Not a penny of income from any source. Families, with children, living on zero gross income.

Another 20% live on zero net income. When standard deductions allowed by the SNAP program are deducted from gross income, nothing remains. Things like car payments, credit card payments are not allowed.

So 40% of all food stamp recipients receive the maximum benefits allowed, because they have no (net) income. Month after month, the same households.

This does not include the households living on less than $1000 a year, but more than $12. With those included, we are over 50% of all households.

Only a very naive person would believe they are all doing this against their will.

20% of all food stamp households have zero gross income, month after month, year after year. Not a penny from any source.

Another 18-20% live on zero net income. After program allowed deductions (which does not include car payments or credit card payments), the household has zero net income.

So about 40% of all SNAP recipients receive maximum allowed benefits, because they are living on zero (net) income.
This does not include those living on $12 to $100 per month. All considered, over half of all food stamp households are living on less than $100 per month.

Only a very naive person would believe they do this against their will.

SoCal said:

Reactionaryism, where the rich and their secretaries pay the same tax rate and continue clinging to their stereotype of welfare recipients.

I do not believe anywhere near the majority of welfare recipients would be living on a shoestring if they didn't have to. I don't think a wealthy reactionary who'll work for Don, who suppresses science and is completely out of touch with the inner-city, deciding who's able-bodied enough to hold a job. And is there any question of who ordered this and why (Numnuts to make The Cult happy (political reasons))?

Perdue says, "...the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years...."

But with an unemployment rate of 3.7 are employers actually still looking for employees?

"...economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5%, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.6%, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient..."

Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment

The vast majority of the very rich do not give back anywhere near enough to the country they earn their wealth in. A wealth tax is required to repair and/or maintain our railroads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure they use and need to become rich, to say nothing of Americans on the borderline.

If they don't like it, I suggest they move to a Western European county where they pay real taxes, or maybe they'd be happier moving to Russia and buying as much security and freedom as they can afford...

Click to expand...

Envy is a terrible poison to let flow through one's soul.

The worst thing anyone can do to another human, is claim they are so inferior, they must submit to the crumbs the government feeds them to survive.

1.8% is not a huge cut and it is targeted toward people on time-limit waivers who may not otherwise be in areas in which the waivers were originally intended.

ocean515 said:

Envy is a terrible poison to let flow through one's soul.

The worst thing anyone can do to another human, is claim they are so inferior, they must submit to the crumbs the government feeds them to survive.

Click to expand...

I would say a worse thing is for a healthy, able bodied person, to expend no effort providing their own needs (and the needs of their legal dependents), but rather expect others to provide all of those needs.
But that is just me. Others think that is just fine.
I get it.

Is this what we are talking about?

The proposed GOP law would raise the age of those subject to the work requirement from 49 to 59, and extend the work requirements to adults with children ages 6 and older. The minimum work required would rise to 25 hours per week in 2026.

According to CBO, 62 percent of the 1.2 million who would ultimately lose benefits would be able-bodied adults caring for children 6 or older. Another 27 percent would able-bodied adults between the ages of 50 and 59 without dependents (due to the age extension in the bill). And 11 percent of them would be able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependents.

CBO estimates that, on average in 2028, those 1.2 million people would lose $1,816 in annual food assistance benefits.

In addition to the new work requirements trimming the ranks of SNAP recipients, CBO says another 400,000 households per year would lose eligibility due to a change that would cut off SNAP eligibility for those whose gross income exceeds 130 percent of poverty, instead of the 200 percent threshold for SNAP recipients in some states.

The bill would provide an additional $6.7 billion over the next 10 years for employment and training services — an amount CBO does not expect would fund enough job training for all who would be eligible for it under the new bill.

Click to expand...

Facts on Food Stamp Work Requirements - FactCheck.org

ocean515 said:

"The changes will move more “able-bodied” adults into the workplace, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said. "​

Progressivism, where loafers and takers believe everyone else owes them a living.

Click to expand...

Maybe you should read Dwight Eisenhower's famous Cross of Iron speech. He was also a rational Republican. We have a responsibility to care for others who are less fortunate instead of calling them loafers and takers.

nd so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world. This has been the way of life forged by eight years of fear and force. What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road? The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated. The worst is atomic war. The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system, or the Soviet system, or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953.

Click to expand...

Dwight D. Eisenhower Cross of Iron Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors

SoCal said:

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

Click to expand...

Obama added 11 million. And that's the problem. Food stamps were never intended to be a way of life. But once a government program is started it never goes away and only grows.

Surely out of 11 million there must be some that can survive without food stamps.

jimbo said:

Obama added 11 million. And that's the problem. Food stamps were never intended to be a way of life. But once a government program is started it never goes away and only grows.

Surely out of 11 million there must be some that can survive without food stamps.

Click to expand...

Obama added them because of the crash of 2008, or didn't Fox News link those two facts? People getting hungry when jobs evaporate and they are pout of work because unregulated banking policies crash the economy, over and over. Didn't you learn your lesson from 1929 and 1987?

Lisa said:

Obama added them because of the crash of 2008, or didn't Fox News link those two facts? People getting hungry when jobs evaporate and they are pout of work because unregulated banking policies crash the economy, over and over. Didn't you learn your lesson from 1929 and 1987?

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter why Obama added them. The fact is most of them are still in effect.

Your other "points" other than that I don't watch Fox. You probably need to start new threads.

jimbo said:

Doesn't matter why Obama added them. The fact is most of them are still in effect.

Your other "points" other than that I don't watch Fox. You probably need to start new threads.

Click to expand...

It does matter why they happened. They were the result of the fall 2008 economic crash. Facts matter.

The food stamp program--renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in 2008--has been a lifesaver since the economic downturn.[1] Average monthly participation grew from 26.3 million people in fiscal year 2007 to 44.7 million in FY 2011, and then to 46.5 million by December 2011, when one in seven Americans were enrolled. The 76.8 percent increase reflects the severe financial hardship in many households resulting from the Great Recession and the slow recovery.

The budgetary cost of the program rose along with participation, from $30.4 billion in 2007 to $71.8 billion in 2011. Nevertheless, without the benefits that SNAP provided--on average $133.85 per month in 2011 per participant (up from $96.18 in 2007) and $535.40 for a four-person household--the situation for many Americans would have been dire. Today, with accelerated economic growth and a stronger job market, participation can be expected to decline, as it did after past recessions.[2]

Click to expand...

The Role of Food Stamps in the Recession - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Lisa said:

It does matter why they happened. They were the result of the fall 2008 economic crash. Facts matter.




The Role of Food Stamps in the Recession - Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Click to expand...

An article dated 2012. Precisely my point.

Are you suggesting that all these recipients are still economically depressed?

jimbo said:

An article dated 2012. Precisely my point.

Are you suggesting that all these recipients are still economically depressed?

Click to expand...

Many of them still are.

Even after the economy stopped contracting in the summer of 2009, its growth has not been nearly strong enough to create the jobs needed simply to keep pace with normal population growth, let alone put back to work the backlog of workers who lost their jobs during the collapse. In the post-World War II recessions before the early 1990s, it took an average of 10 months for the economy to regain the jobs it had lost during the recession. But after the early 1990s recession, it took nearly two years, and after the early 2000s recession, it took over three-and-a-half years. Unfortunately, the recovery from the Great Recession is following the sluggish pattern of these last two recoveries, but likely with an even longer timeline. In October 2010, 16 months after the official end of the recession, the economy still had 5.4% fewer jobs than it did before the recession started. Thus, the Great Recession has brought the worst of both worlds: extraordinarily severe job loss, combined with an extremely sluggish recovery.

The job loss during the Great Recession has meant that family incomes have dropped, poverty has risen, and adults as well as children have lost health insurance. The bursting of the housing bubble and the drop in the stock market has meant that family wealth has dropped dramatically, as well. This feature highlights the impact of the Great Recession on the labor market and on working families.

Click to expand...

But even though the class of 2018 is entering one of the most robust job markets in decades, it too will face challenges. The average annual entry-level salary for a college graduate has been flat since 2005 at just over $50,000, and after adjusting for inflation, entry-level pay is only up 6 percent since 1960. Add the explosive growth to student loan debt and the climbing costs of housing, and it’s clear that college grads face a tough start no matter when they enter the workforce. Most of the new jobs created in the past decade were “alternative work.” That means temp, on call, contract and freelance, and one in three adults say they do some kind of nonstandard gig work to get by. The labor force participation rate fell sharply during the recession and remained there, hovering around 63 percent in 2018. That means the share of working-age adults who have a job or are actively looking for one is near a decadeslong low.

Today’s average hourly wage has roughly the same purchasing power it did in 1978. That means wage stagnation is a decades long problem. But the post-Great Recession employment landscape is unique because that stagnation has continued throughout the recovery, even as the unemployment rate has continued to drop near historic lows. Historically after a recession, as unemployment went down, the hiring market became more competitive and wages went up. That direct relationship fractured during this recovery, however, leaving many economists baffled.

Click to expand...

Lisa said:

Many of them still are.

Click to expand...

But we're talking about 700,000 out of 11 million new recipients out of 40+ million total.

If the SNAP hasn't improved the status of 700,000, then we need to rethink the entire program.

jimbo said:

But we're talking about 700,000 out of 11 million new recipients out of 40+ million total.

If the SNAP hasn't improved the status of 700,000, then we need to rethink the entire program.

Click to expand...

Why is it that we can give billions to the rich, but it is wrong to feed, house and clothe the poor, sik or aged? That $120 per person doesnt go very far.

Lisa said:

Why is it that we can give billions to the rich, but it is wrong to feed, house and clothe the poor, sik or aged? That $120 per person doesnt go very far.

Click to expand...

Another post, another diversion.

Fact is the "rich", the top 10%, pay half the taxes. Without those, we'd really have a major problem.