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

[VanceMack]

Yes it is wrong. People with jobs aren't the ones who need food.

OK. We disagree. You think its acceptable for capable able bodied adults without children to sit at home and collect benefits, and I think they should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

We can call that an honest disagreement.

 

[lwf]

OK. We disagree. You think its acceptable for capable able bodied adults without children to sit at home and collect benefits, and I think they should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

We can call that an honest disagreement.

Allow me to clarify. I think it is acceptable for capable able bodied adults without children who cannot find work to collect benefits while looking for work. Looking for employment should be required. Working 20 hours a week before you qualify for government food assistance should not be required.

 

[VanceMack]

Yes. I already said that. What part of "The policy is wrong" did you not understand?

the part where you input the 'qualifier' regarding he current istuation. The current situation is abnormal.

Its OK. We can disagree. You believe the government welfare policy that says capable able bodied people can just sit at home and do nothing and collect benefits is acceptable and I believe cable able bodied adults without dependents should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

Agree to disagree.

 

[VanceMack]

Allow me to clarify. I think it is acceptable for capable able bodied adults without children who cannot find work to collect benefits while looking for work. Looking for employment should be required. Working 20 hours a week should not be required.

OK then.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

OK. We disagree. You think its acceptable for capable able bodied adults without children to sit at home and collect benefits, and I think they should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

We can call that an honest disagreement.

When there IS a lot of work available, it makes more sense to have a "NO Work = NO Benefit" rule than it does when there IS NOT a lot of work available.

Since there are hundreds of thousands of currently unfilled jobs in the United States of America (due to those so-called "layoffs" purportedly due to some silly "COVID-19 HOAX"), it makes perfect sense to be very strict in enforcing a "NO Work = NO Benefit" rule.

Not only that, but Mr. Trump is only enforcing God's Word ("If a man will not work, he shall not eat." - 2 Thessalonians 3:10) and it is completely obvious that anyone who opposes Mr. Trump's actions is a willing and eager tool of Satan.

[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”.]

 

[marke]

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.

While I admire the compassion so many big spending lawmakers have on the poor, I do not respect them for failing to devise a plan to balance growing government expenditures with guaranteed government income. The US is not too big to fail and massive overruns in deficit spending will always result in drastic cuts to economic prosperity in the future. The reason the US is getting away with spending trillions of dollars each year that it has no plan in place for repayment is that other world nations have not yet closed down the ability of the USD to borrow from them. Other nations are badly affected by US deficit spending and they will most likely not put up with the credit borrowing and spending for much longer. Everyone in the US will become immediately painfully aware when the world nations pull the plug on US deficit spending.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you believe the policy submitted a year ago that requires able bodied adults without dependents to work a minimum of 20 hours a week is 'wrong'?

Yes, because it encourages adding a dependent.

 

[lwf]

OK then.

You will have a hard time finding anyone even on the extreme left who approves of anyone sitting at home collecting government benefits without contributing except in cases of the disabled. It is a right wing myth that democrats want the rich minority to pay for the lazy majority in some kind of socialist dystopia. What democrats, (the vast majority anyway,) want is for their tax dollars to be used to help lift the least fortunate up to have somewhere close to the same opportunities for providing for themselves as those who are fortunate enough to be born into wealth.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes, because it encourages adding a dependent.

So, do you honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps"?

Come ON NOW!!!

 

[VanceMack]

You will have a hard time finding anyone even on the extreme left who approves of anyone sitting at home collecting government benefits without contributing except in cases of the disabled. It is a right wing myth that democrats want the rich minority to pay for the lazy majority in some kind of socialist dystopia. What democrats, (the vast majority anyway,) want is for their tax dollars to be used to help lift the least fortunate up to have somewhere close to the same opportunities for providing for themselves as those who are fortunate enough to be born into wealth.

History proves the opposite. That is what this policy is trying to correct. I dont think it goes far enough. The SNAP and EBT systems are too easily abused. They should use vouchers similar to the WIC program.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So, do you honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps"?

Come ON NOW!!!

If adding a dependent transforms a poor person (perhaps now sharing a bedroom with others) who does not qualify for multiple "safety net" programs (SNAP is but one of them) into a needy household which does (thus being able to move into their own, less crowded, apartment) that is certainly likely to influence behavior.

 

[Visbek]

the part where you input the 'qualifier' regarding he current istuation.

You should actually read my post. I used no qualifiers.

I pointed out that the current situation illustrates one reason why it's a bad policy.

You believe the government welfare policy that says capable able bodied people can just sit at home and do nothing and collect benefits is acceptable and I believe cable able bodied adults without dependents should be required to work a minimum of 20 hours.

Or, you can drop the ideological bull****, and actually try to understand the program.

- 10% of recipients are disabled
- 10% of recipients are 60 or older
- 45% of SNAP recipients are children
- Roughly 30% of SNAP recipients are on it for a year or less
- Most working-age SNAP recipients work, but have trouble finding stable employment, often because of health reasons, or because they have to take care of someone else
- Less than 2% of SNAP recipients may lose eligibility because of the rule change

So right off the bat, the idea that SNAP recipients are all a bunch of unmotivated grifters is basically nonsense.

SNAP benefits are also small -- it works out to $1.40 per person, per meal. Would you quit your job for that?

FYI, it is rural counties in the South and Southwest, where work is not always easy to find, that rely most heavily on SNAP.



It should also be obvious that few people choose to be unemployed. Again, that is clearly illustrated by current conditions.

To put all this another way: Callous people have spent decades trying to destroy the safety net in the US. And yet, despite their efforts, there is no correlation between either unemployment rates, or the labor force participation rate, and changes to safety nets. It's almost like... like... unemployment rates are predominantly influenced by structural economic issues, instead of individual choices!!! Woah. So crazy.

 

[VanceMack]

You should actually read my post. I used no qualifiers.

I pointed out that the current situation illustrates one reason why it's a bad policy.



Or, you can drop the ideological bull****, and actually try to understand the program.

- 10% of recipients are disabled
- 10% of recipients are 60 or older
- 45% of SNAP recipients are children
- Roughly 30% of SNAP recipients are on it for a year or less
- Most working-age SNAP recipients work, but have trouble finding stable employment, often because of health reasons, or because they have to take care of someone else
- Less than 2% of SNAP recipients may lose eligibility because of the rule change

So right off the bat, the idea that SNAP recipients are all a bunch of unmotivated grifters is basically nonsense.

SNAP benefits are also small -- it works out to $1.40 per person, per meal. Would you quit your job for that?

FYI, it is rural counties in the South and Southwest, where work is not always easy to find, that rely most heavily on SNAP.

View attachment 67277386

It should also be obvious that few people choose to be unemployed. Again, that is clearly illustrated by current conditions.

To put all this another way: Callous people have spent decades trying to destroy the safety net in the US. And yet, despite their efforts, there is no correlation between either unemployment rates, or the labor force participation rate, and changes to safety nets. It's almost like... like... unemployment rates are predominantly influenced by structural economic issues, instead of individual choices!!! Woah. So crazy.

The current situation is an extreme. Prior to the apandemic there was no excuse for able bodied adults to not find at least part time work. The goal in social services is to take people from a dependent to a whole status. You have to engage to achieve that status.

And the fact is you are making MY point. This policy change has nothing to do with the majority of recipients and doesnt target hose incapable or unable. It targets the ABLE.

 

[Razoo]

Demanding that people must find work to accept assistance is bit like bull****.

What makes anyone believe there are jobs available for all that need work?

The real BS is the fact that millions of USA jobs have gone abroad which began in earnest under Reagan/Bush and so did preferential tax codes that support USA employment beyond our borders. Then we have Mitt Romney putting a lot of debt on the backs of USA industry which forces bankruptcy then USA job losses then like magic these corporations are found beyond our borders while Mitt, His wife and partners make zillions of dollars ...... ever heard of leveraged buyouts? Leveraged Buyout Financing should be stricken from the loan industry.

So conservative thinkers the people you worship are killing USA employment yet YOU are under the impression that jobs are available under every rock. There is no excuse for that type of lame thinking.

 

[Razoo]

The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps

Research shows the much-maligned aid to the poor buys broad economic and public health gains.

When food stamps get spent, we all benefit. Despite critics’ focus on the costs of SNAP,*research*has shown that these dollars are among the best forms of government stimulus. Food stamp spending generates local economic activity, jobs in the farm and retail sectors and beyond.

CHARTS: The Hidden Benefits of Food Stamps – Mother Jones

 

[Visbek]

The current situation is an extreme. Prior to the apandemic there was no excuse for able bodied adults to not find at least part time work.

:roll:

- You can be sick enough not to be able to work, but still not qualify for disability.

- You may need to take care of someone else -- a child, an elderly adult, a sick spouse etc.

- You may be in an area that simply does not have any work, and cannot afford to move.

- You may be trying to retrain for a new job. (Note: Lots of part-time work is scheduled so chaotically, in favor of the employer of course, that it's often difficult to retrain and hold down a part-time job.)

- You may simply be between jobs (again, a frequent reason why unemployed people apply for SNAP).

- The local, national and/or global economy crashes, and takes your job with it. (That keeps happening, by the way.)

When it comes to safety nets, current situation is only extreme in the rapidity in which it hit employment. Previous recessions are slower, but have much the same effect: Not enough jobs, too many job seekers.

The goal in social services is to take people from a dependent to a whole status. You have to engage to achieve that status.

And in your mind, starvation is the best way to achieve this? :roll:

Again, SNAP benefits are so low, that the idea it encourages long-term dependency is absurd. The program also gradually phases out, meaning recipients aren't punished when they earn a higher income.

Oh, and plenty of nations have halfway decent safety nets -- and aren't overwhelmed with hordes of slackers, and have good growth and employment rates. Of course, one reason for that is the benefits often help people who want to work, such as offering child care and health care. What a freakin' concept.

And the fact is you are making MY point. This policy change has nothing to do with the majority of recipients and doesnt target hose incapable or unable. It targets the ABLE.

It also targets people who are temporarily unemployed due to no fault of their own -- whose ranks just grew by well over 10 million, and counting.

And yet again, expanding or cutting safety nets has no effect whatsoever on the number of people who want to work. Your fundamental premise is obviously wrong, and buoyed not by evidence, but by ideology.

 

[VanceMack]

:roll:

- You can be sick enough not to be able to work, but still not qualify for disability.

- You may need to take care of someone else -- a child, an elderly adult, a sick spouse etc.

- You may be in an area that simply does not have any work, and cannot afford to move.

- You may be trying to retrain for a new job. (Note: Lots of part-time work is scheduled so chaotically, in favor of the employer of course, that it's often difficult to retrain and hold down a part-time job.)

- You may simply be between jobs (again, a frequent reason why unemployed people apply for SNAP).

- The local, national and/or global economy crashes, and takes your job with it. (That keeps happening, by the way.)

When it comes to safety nets, current situation is only extreme in the rapidity in which it hit employment. Previous recessions are slower, but have much the same effect: Not enough jobs, too many job seekers.



And in your mind, starvation is the best way to achieve this? :roll:

Again, SNAP benefits are so low, that the idea it encourages long-term dependency is absurd. The program also gradually phases out, meaning recipients aren't punished when they earn a higher income.

Oh, and plenty of nations have halfway decent safety nets -- and aren't overwhelmed with hordes of slackers, and have good growth and employment rates. Of course, one reason for that is the benefits often help people who want to work, such as offering child care and health care. What a freakin' concept.



It also targets people who are temporarily unemployed due to no fault of their own -- whose ranks just grew by well over 10 million, and counting.

And yet again, expanding or cutting safety nets has no effect whatsoever on the number of people who want to work. Your fundamental premise is obviously wrong, and buoyed not by evidence, but by ideology.

View attachment 67277396

Yes. People on government assistance need to work...not live their life on the dole as a crippled dependent pet. I know that’s a hard pill for leftists to swallow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HenryChinaski]

Yes. People on government assistance need to work...not live their life on the dole as a crippled dependent pet. I know that’s a hard pill for leftists to swallow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe one day you’ll need government assistance. You could easily come down with a life-threatening illness, leukemia or a brain tumor, wind up in circumstances where you’ll need SNAP in order to eat. Maybe unforeseen circumstances will hit you with unemployment and without a backup plan and you’ll need SNAP. The only way you can justify your ****ed up beliefs is to keep spouting lazy welfare queen stereotypes. But whatever makes you feel better about your about having to live with your position

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If adding a dependent transforms a poor person (perhaps now sharing a bedroom with others) who does not qualify for multiple "safety net" programs (SNAP is but one of them) into a needy household which does (thus being able to move into their own, less crowded, apartment) that is certainly likely to influence behavior.

So you DO honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps".

Why does that make me think that there are too many "t"s and too few "i"s in your "netnick"?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Our President is evil.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Yes. People on government assistance need to work...not live their life on the dole as a crippled dependent pet.

Absolutely, those "social parasites" who will not work should not eat. If they want to eat, then there are thousands of miles of roads that need upgrading and picks, shovels, and wheelbarrows cost a whole lot less than bulldozers, excavators, and dump trucks. There is absolutely no reason why "The State" should not benefit from forcing those "social parasites" into "beneficial, corrective, labour".

I know that’s a hard pill for leftists to swallow.

You may not have noticed it, but your position is an almost exact echo of the policies in Stalinist Russia.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Our President is evil.

Only en passent.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you DO honestly believe that someone is going to get pregnant and have a child (or get married) just so that they can collect "Food Stamps".

Why does that make me think that there are too many "t"s and too few "i"s in your "netnick"?

Food stamps is a tiny portion of the many "safety net" benefits available to qualifying households. Getting married to someone with a McJob is likely to reduce household "safety net" benefits by more than the added (on the books) income would replace.

 

[Visbek]

Yes. People on government assistance need to work...not live their life on the dole as a crippled dependent pet. I know that’s a hard pill for leftists to swallow.

So basically, you just ignored my entire post. Nice. Real nice.

 

[VanceMack]

Maybe one day you’ll need government assistance. You could easily come down with a life-threatening illness, leukemia or a brain tumor, wind up in circumstances where you’ll need SNAP in order to eat. Maybe unforeseen circumstances will hit you with unemployment and without a backup plan and you’ll need SNAP. The only way you can justify your ****ed up beliefs is to keep spouting lazy welfare queen stereotypes. But whatever makes you feel better about your about having to live with your position

I doubt it but if so, then I wouldnt be the type of person that this policy is identifying, now would I be? This policy is not identifying disabled individuals...it is impacting healthy adult men and women without dependents and it is requiring them to (GASP) work 20 whole hours a week.

But your ridiculous poutrage is noted.