Georgia has discovered the cure for poverty!

[cnelsen]

And that has exactly WHAT to do with food stamps??

Ray from Cleveland and I were swapping anecdotes about what welfare culture is REALLY like, not what virtue-signaling whites like to believe it is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, if you read the OP carefully, it does not say all those people got jobs. It says they had their food stamps taken away.

This is the tard definition of "curing" poverty.

So if they needed those food stamps, don't you think they would have complied with the requirements?

I think a lot of people can easily feed themselves, but will take anything that's free even if they don't have to have it. It's human nature really. Most of the people that I've seen use food stamps certainly didn't need them. I can tell by the other purchases they made, the kind of clothes they wore, the kind of vehicle they drove.

So what these requirements are actually doing is weeding out those who really don't need food stamps in the first place. How can that be a bad thing?

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

no one starts at the top so we do t get married or cohabit at age19 have two kids and Then try and figure out how to support ourselves

That is incoherent!

It's not that it's incoherent but rather that the concept of self sustenance is imperceptible to you

No! I understand self sustenance. What you don't understand is that in a capitalistic system, not everyone can self sustain all of the time, Unemployment and poverty are bi products of capitalism. As the economy expands and contracts a the result of free market forces, so does the labor market and the unemployment rate. Those who are unemployed must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again. That keeps them reasonable healthy and ready to work, and avoids the social unrest that comes with widespread, severe poverty. The safety net supports and perpetuates capitalism and the free market that conservatives are so fond of. The alternative -that conservatives rail against is - is socialism. You can't have it both ways!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's a very typical spin cast by a good little Liberal following protocol.

It could be even simpler. Unlike you and your people maybe we believe a standard and expectation should be met by our fellow humans...after all it's the ability to reason that's suppose to separate us from the animal kingdom...right?
Maybe some of us pay more in income taxes than you earn in a year and we'd like to stop inducing the growing ignorance and dependence within the ghettos. I'd imagine it's pretty easy not be bothered by much when you're either not affected or part of the problem yourself...right? Bear in mind, most are in the 0% effective tax bracket.
AND OR
Maybe some of us are actually pretty decent people whom would like to be able to raise our children in a country that's predominantly made up other decent humans.

You might want to look at this Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

Why?
I don't see your point. I'm engaged in this thread.

Of course you don't. You're to ENGAGED in disparaging the poor and attacking those of us who advocate for them

"Advocate for them" is that what you call it?
By advocating do you really mean excuse making, coddling, and perpetuating a greater, larger epidemic?
I can't understand how or why you bleeding hearts never identify the real problem at its root....it never occurs to you that the problem needs to be dealt with at its origin.
Throwing other people's money over the top of the issue only conceals, masks and treats the problem...that methodology SOLVES nothing.
I'd like to challenge you to clearly identify the REAL problem at its origin...can you do that? Don't be scared to be candid.

I'm thinking this is the part where ole' RegressivePatriot ducks out of this one...haha

I'm not going anywhere. I'll be right here waiting for you to make some sense.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No, if you read the OP carefully, it does not say all those people got jobs. It says they had their food stamps taken away.

This is the tard definition of "curing" poverty.

So if they needed those food stamps, don't you think they would have complied with the requirements?

I think a lot of people can easily feed themselves, but will take anything that's free even if they don't have to have it. It's human nature really. Most of the people that I've seen use food stamps certainly didn't need them. I can tell by the other purchases they made, the kind of clothes they wore, the kind of vehicle they drove.

So what these requirements are actually doing is weeding out those who really don't need food stamps in the first place. How can that be a bad thing?

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

LePage’s ‘welfare reform’ won’t set Maine up for shared prosperity

I don’t know so for a fact, but I think the following assumptions have to be in place in order for such welfare reform policy initiatives to appear credible:

— Most “welfare recipients” can and should work.

— A large number of recipients are lazy and scam the system.
— These abusers force us taxpayers to carry more than our fair share.

— Punishment will fix the issue of alcohol and drug addiction.

— Social welfare agencies are too generous and are not run efficiently.

None of the above statements is accurate from what I have experienced — not one. If they were, I’d be a big supporter of these proposals and politically with the far right. And as to how much taxpayer “burden” is fair, first we must answer the question of what kind of society we want.

To my eye, the positions around welfare reform in the governor’s budget start with ideology and rest on predetermined premises illustrated by anecdote.

We all know stories of hard-working citizens citing misuse of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit cards, abuse they personally witness in grocery stores. It is sadly fascinating to me how much stock is given to these anecdotes, how like an urban legend they are quickly believed and spread as gospel.

Do such things happen? Of course! Are these incidences representative of thousands of people? Hell, no!

will not succeed by attacking poor people and trying to punish them. Yes, we should hold people to fair expectations about responsibility and behavior, but let’s offer paths to self- improvement.

Giving disproportionate tax breaks to the few who are wealthy at the expense of not investing in people struggling in poverty is not the path to shared prosperity. Expecting that taxpayers will continue to make financial donations to repair the holes in the safety net caused by those who are supposed to be tending to it — and then not allowing them a tax deduction — is an abuse of power.

 

[cnelsen]

no one starts at the top so we do t get married or cohabit at age19 have two kids and Then try and figure out how to support ourselves

That is incoherent!

It's not that it's incoherent but rather that the concept of self sustenance is imperceptible to you

No! I understand self sustenance. What you don't understand is that in a capitalistic system, not everyone can self sustain all of the time, Unemployment and poverty are bi products of capitalism. As the economy expands and contracts a the result of free market forces, so does the labor market and the unemployment rate. Those who are unemployed must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again. That keeps them reasonable healthy and ready to work, and avoids the social unrest that comes with widespread, severe poverty. The safety net supports and perpetuates capitalism and the free market that conservatives are so fond of. The alternative -that conservatives rail against is - is socialism. You can't have it both ways!!

You think about economics like you've sat in too many useless lectures by Marxist economics professors. Among numerous blatant errors Marx made was the idea that human worth is measured in units of labor. Just listen to yourself: "must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again". It's like you are talking about a harvesting tool you keep on a hook or breeder sows kept alive only to produce babies. It is a wildly inaccurate conception of the human condition, which corresponds to Marxism's wild failures every time it's tried and to its wild inhumanity and brutality--why it so regularly produced genocide.

"Capitalistic system" is probably the least helpful way to think about economics.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You might want to look at this Why are republicans so stupid when it comes to Food Stamps?

Why?
I don't see your point. I'm engaged in this thread.

Of course you don't. You're to ENGAGED in disparaging the poor and attacking those of us who advocate for them

"Advocate for them" is that what you call it?
By advocating do you really mean excuse making, coddling, and perpetuating a greater, larger epidemic?
I can't understand how or why you bleeding hearts never identify the real problem at its root....it never occurs to you that the problem needs to be dealt with at its origin.
Throwing other people's money over the top of the issue only conceals, masks and treats the problem...that methodology SOLVES nothing.
I'd like to challenge you to clearly identify the REAL problem at its origin...can you do that? Don't be scared to be candid.

I'm thinking this is the part where ole' RegressivePatriot ducks out of this one...haha

I'm not going anywhere. I'll be right here waiting for you to make some sense.

I don't know how to be any more sensible. Follow along.
"I'd like to challenge you to clearly identify the REAL problem at its origin...can you do that? Don't be scared to be candid"

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

no one starts at the top so we do t get married or cohabit at age19 have two kids and Then try and figure out how to support ourselves

That is incoherent!

It's not that it's incoherent but rather that the concept of self sustenance is imperceptible to you

No! I understand self sustenance. What you don't understand is that in a capitalistic system, not everyone can self sustain all of the time, Unemployment and poverty are bi products of capitalism. As the economy expands and contracts a the result of free market forces, so does the labor market and the unemployment rate. Those who are unemployed must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again. That keeps them reasonable healthy and ready to work, and avoids the social unrest that comes with widespread, severe poverty. The safety net supports and perpetuates capitalism and the free market that conservatives are so fond of. The alternative -that conservatives rail against is - is socialism. You can't have it both ways!!

You think about economics like you've sat in too many useless lectures by Marxist economics professors. Among numerous blatant errors Marx made was the idea that human worth is measured in units of labor. Just listen to yourself: "must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again". It's like you are talking about a harvesting tool you keep on a hook or breeder sows kept alive only to produce babies. It is a wildly inaccurate conception of the human condition, which corresponds to Marxism's wild failures every time it's tried and to its wild inhumanity and brutality--why it so regularly produced genocide.

"Capitalistic system" is probably the least helpful way to think about economics.

Instead of just saying that I'm wrong and railing against Marxism , perhaps you can explain exactly why I'm wrong and what your solution is to reconcile capitalism and the need for a social safety net. Capitalist do in fact see labor as sows to be harvested when needed and discarded when not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hazlnut]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Most people on Food Stamps already have 1-2 jobs.

Many work at Walmart.

The American Tax payer has been supplementing low-wage FULL-TIME worker for decades while the Walton kids are among the wealthiest individuals in the world.

Now tell me....Who steals from who?

 

[Flopper]

I find the statement very misleading. The question is whether they are taking credit for people getting jobs or kicking people off of food stamps. Did the rolls drop because they knew they would be dropped and didn't show up even if they had been looking for jobs. If you sere interesting in helping people, you would find out why these people didn't show up. If it was because they found jobs then maybe you would consider expanding the program. However it appears this is about making it so tough to get help they won't show up. This is pure evil.

Since these people are only eligible for 3 months of foods stamps, they're going to be dropped with or without these regulations. Most able bodied adults without dependents on food stamps have jobs well before the end of the 3 month period.

 

[cnelsen]

So if they needed those food stamps, don't you think they would have complied with the requirements?

I think a lot of people can easily feed themselves, but will take anything that's free even if they don't have to have it. It's human nature really. Most of the people that I've seen use food stamps certainly didn't need them. I can tell by the other purchases they made, the kind of clothes they wore, the kind of vehicle they drove.

So what these requirements are actually doing is weeding out those who really don't need food stamps in the first place. How can that be a bad thing?

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

LePage’s ‘welfare reform’ won’t set Maine up for shared prosperity

I don’t know so for a fact, but I think the following assumptions have to be in place in order for such welfare reform policy initiatives to appear credible:

— Most “welfare recipients” can and should work.

— A large number of recipients are lazy and scam the system.
— These abusers force us taxpayers to carry more than our fair share.

— Punishment will fix the issue of alcohol and drug addiction.

— Social welfare agencies are too generous and are not run efficiently.

None of the above statements is accurate from what I have experienced — not one. If they were, I’d be a big supporter of these proposals and politically with the far right. And as to how much taxpayer “burden” is fair, first we must answer the question of what kind of society we want.

To my eye, the positions around welfare reform in the governor’s budget start with ideology and rest on predetermined premises illustrated by anecdote.

We all know stories of hard-working citizens citing misuse of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefit cards, abuse they personally witness in grocery stores. It is sadly fascinating to me how much stock is given to these anecdotes, how like an urban legend they are quickly believed and spread as gospel.

Do such things happen? Of course! Are these incidences representative of thousands of people? Hell, no!

will not succeed by attacking poor people and trying to punish them. Yes, we should hold people to fair expectations about responsibility and behavior, but let’s offer paths to self- improvement.

Giving disproportionate tax breaks to the few who are wealthy at the expense of not investing in people struggling in poverty is not the path to shared prosperity. Expecting that taxpayers will continue to make financial donations to repair the holes in the safety net caused by those who are supposed to be tending to it — and then not allowing them a tax deduction — is an abuse of power.

It's like your post was written by the DNC. All the old key verbal sleights-of-hand are there. People who want to cut down on slackers abusing the system are "attacking poor people" and wanting the able-bodied to earn their daily bread is "trying to punish" them. Both locutions aggressively misleading.

Then there are the weasel words--words that can be stretched to mean just about anything--words people use who need to say something but don't want to say anything. "Fair expectations", "paths to self-improvement", "investing in people", "shared prosperity", "holes in the safety net" --all bullshit mush words--the reason people hate politicians--the language of liars.

The only thing I find interesting about the left--and I've wondered this since high school--was how much of your own crap do you actually believe. I've always suspected that way deep down in your heart of hearts, you all know you are phonies, but continue your lies for some other purpose.

 

[cnelsen]

It's called making people work, train, or volunteer while on food stamps:

Thousands Cured Of Poverty After Georgia Introduces Work-For-Food-Stamp Requirement – MILO NEWS

Thousands of people have been miraculously cured of poverty in Georgia following the state’s implementation of a requirement that all those receiving stamps must either be working, training for a job, or volunteering for a non-profit or charity.

According to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year.”

The outlet states that the latest rollout saw the requirements reach 21 counties, affecting roughly 12,000 able-bodied people without children.

Those people were given until April 1 to fulfil the aforementioned requirement. But when that date rolled around, The Journal-Constitution, citing state figures, reports that more than half of the food stamp recipients were dropped from the program.

“Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent,” the outlet states.

According to The Journal-Constitution Georgian officials are looking at expanding the food stamp requirements to all 159 counties in the state by 2019.

“The greater good is people being employed, being productive, and contributing to the state,” said Bobby Cagle, head of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children Services, according to the outlet...

I've long said that any long-term people on welfare should be required to work in the fields or volunteer 20 hours per week for a government or non-profit agency unless they have a serious and medically-documented condition that precludes them from doing so. We should roll this program out nationwide.

Most people on Food Stamps already have 1-2 jobs.

Many work at Walmart.

The American Tax payer has been supplementing low-wage FULL-TIME worker for decades while the Walton kids are among the wealthiest individuals in the world.

Now tell me....Who steals from who?

The bureaucrats and the Democrats steal from all of us. Only a leftist could pass a government program that transferred wealth from one segment of society to another and then complain that the inevitable adjustment in the marketplace was "stealing".

 

[cnelsen]

no one starts at the top so we do t get married or cohabit at age19 have two kids and Then try and figure out how to support ourselves

That is incoherent!

It's not that it's incoherent but rather that the concept of self sustenance is imperceptible to you

No! I understand self sustenance. What you don't understand is that in a capitalistic system, not everyone can self sustain all of the time, Unemployment and poverty are bi products of capitalism. As the economy expands and contracts a the result of free market forces, so does the labor market and the unemployment rate. Those who are unemployed must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again. That keeps them reasonable healthy and ready to work, and avoids the social unrest that comes with widespread, severe poverty. The safety net supports and perpetuates capitalism and the free market that conservatives are so fond of. The alternative -that conservatives rail against is - is socialism. You can't have it both ways!!

You think about economics like you've sat in too many useless lectures by Marxist economics professors. Among numerous blatant errors Marx made was the idea that human worth is measured in units of labor. Just listen to yourself: "must be sustained by the social welfare safety net until their labor is needed again". It's like you are talking about a harvesting tool you keep on a hook or breeder sows kept alive only to produce babies. It is a wildly inaccurate conception of the human condition, which corresponds to Marxism's wild failures every time it's tried and to its wild inhumanity and brutality--why it so regularly produced genocide.

"Capitalistic system" is probably the least helpful way to think about economics.

Instead of just saying that I'm wrong and railing against Marxism , perhaps you can explain exactly why I'm wrong and what your solution is to reconcile capitalism and the need for a social safety net. Capitalist do in fact see labor as sows to be harvested when needed and discarded when not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You see humans as divided into two camps. There are these people called "labor" over here, and over there are these mysterious creatures called "capitalists". How do we determine who is which? Are capitalists employers? In other words, when two people enter into a contract where they trade one's time or talent or whatever for the other's money or housing or knowledge or whatever, we have some special formula that tells us this one is the capitalist? If that is all it is, how is that incompatible with a social safety net?

 

[cnelsen]

Capitalist do in fact see labor as sows to be harvested when needed and discarded when not.

Just as labor sees employers as sows to be harvested when needed and discarded when not.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Poor cnelson, perpetual victim.....

 

[Flopper]

No, if you read the OP carefully, it does not say all those people got jobs. It says they had their food stamps taken away.

This is the tard definition of "curing" poverty.

So if they needed those food stamps, don't you think they would have complied with the requirements?

I think a lot of people can easily feed themselves, but will take anything that's free even if they don't have to have it. It's human nature really. Most of the people that I've seen use food stamps certainly didn't need them. I can tell by the other purchases they made, the kind of clothes they wore, the kind of vehicle they drove.

So what these requirements are actually doing is weeding out those who really don't need food stamps in the first place. How can that be a bad thing?

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Maine like Georgia's regulation applies only to able bodied adults without dependents. The elderly are not considered by either state in the program. What this means is 90% of food stamp recipients are not part of the program. Existing federal regulation place a time limit on the use of food stamps for able bodied adults without dependents to 3 months over a 36 month period. Federal regulations require that during this time period they must be registered and actively looking for employment and must accept any job offered that they are qualified for. Since over 75% of these people have jobs in 30 to 60 days, this programs is accomplishing little if anything.

Instead creating these ridiculous programs that do little or nothing, what states should be doing is monitoring employment of recipients more closely. Although regulations require recipients to report income and stop using their SNAP card when they become ineligible, most people continue to use them until the state stops them which can be up a year after they are no longer eligible. The states are responsible for this but are ignoring it and as such, many millions are wasted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most people on Food Stamps already have 1-2 jobs.

Many work at Walmart.

The American Tax payer has been supplementing low-wage FULL-TIME worker for decades while the Walton kids are among the wealthiest individuals in the world.

Now tell me....Who steals from who?

It's the Democrat politicians stealing from the taxpayer. Where do you people get this notion that if somebody doesn't make enough money, it's governments responsibility to give them taxpayers money that they didn't earn?

But instead of blaming government, you blame Walmart. HTF is it Walmart's fault if the government is giving them money they didn't work for?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So if they needed those food stamps, don't you think they would have complied with the requirements?

I think a lot of people can easily feed themselves, but will take anything that's free even if they don't have to have it. It's human nature really. Most of the people that I've seen use food stamps certainly didn't need them. I can tell by the other purchases they made, the kind of clothes they wore, the kind of vehicle they drove.

So what these requirements are actually doing is weeding out those who really don't need food stamps in the first place. How can that be a bad thing?

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Maine like Georgia's regulation applies only to able bodied adults without dependents. The elderly are not considered by either state in the program. What this means is 90% of food stamp recipients are not part of the program. Existing federal regulation place a time limit on the use of food stamps for able bodied adults without dependents to 3 months over a 36 month period. Federal regulations require that during this time period they must be registered and actively looking for employment and must accept any job offered that they are qualified for. Since over 75% of these people have jobs in 30 to 60 days, this programs is accomplishing little if anything.

Instead creating these ridiculous programs that do little or nothing, what states should be doing is monitoring employment of recipients more closely. Although regulations require recipients to report income and stop using their SNAP card when they become ineligible, most people continue to use them until the state stops them which can be up a year after they are no longer eligible. The states are responsible for this but are ignoring it and as such, many millions are wasted.

What these requirements demonstrate is that most people on food stamps really don't need them. Let me ask: if all of a sudden we ended the food stamp program, do you really believe people would just stop eating?

Of course not. They would just start buying their own food. They may have to make cuts in other places such as their cigarettes, their alcohol, maybe get rid of their multiple pets they are feeding, but they are not about to stop eating. And when they are paying for their own food, it won't be frozen TV dinners, steaks or ribs. They would have to purchase food within their budget just like working people do every day.

My father retired over 20 years ago, same with my mother. Why are they not getting food stamps? Could it be because my father was responsible enough to secure his and my mothers retirement? Could it be because he worked hard all of his life and built a social security account that enabled him to retire comfortably?

It's my speculation that if you are elderly and getting food stamps, you probably didn't work much in your working life when you could have.

 

[busybee01]

We don't know that. You would have to find out why they didn't show up. If they tried to get work and failed and knew they would be cut off then that is not cutting poverty.

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Maine like Georgia's regulation applies only to able bodied adults without dependents. The elderly are not considered by either state in the program. What this means is 90% of food stamp recipients are not part of the program. Existing federal regulation place a time limit on the use of food stamps for able bodied adults without dependents to 3 months over a 36 month period. Federal regulations require that during this time period they must be registered and actively looking for employment and must accept any job offered that they are qualified for. Since over 75% of these people have jobs in 30 to 60 days, this programs is accomplishing little if anything.

Instead creating these ridiculous programs that do little or nothing, what states should be doing is monitoring employment of recipients more closely. Although regulations require recipients to report income and stop using their SNAP card when they become ineligible, most people continue to use them until the state stops them which can be up a year after they are no longer eligible. The states are responsible for this but are ignoring it and as such, many millions are wasted.

What these requirements demonstrate is that most people on food stamps really don't need them. Let me ask: if all of a sudden we ended the food stamp program, do you really believe people would just stop eating?

Of course not. They would just start buying their own food. They may have to make cuts in other places such as their cigarettes, their alcohol, maybe get rid of their multiple pets they are feeding, but they are not about to stop eating. And when they are paying for their own food, it won't be frozen TV dinners, steaks or ribs. They would have to purchase food within their budget just like working people do every day.

My father retired over 20 years ago, same with my mother. Why are they not getting food stamps? Could it be because my father was responsible enough to secure his and my mothers retirement? Could it be because he worked hard all of his life and built a social security account that enabled him to retire comfortably?

It's my speculation that if you are elderly and getting food stamps, you probably didn't work much in your working life when you could have.

Arrogant idiots like you are pigs. You rely on every stereotype to attack people and unless you have asked them you d0on't have a clue. The fact is that you have to be at the poverty level to get food stamps. It is not something that is handed out willy nilly which you imply.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So where is this place were there are no jobs? I don't buy that for a minute. Even if you got a job at McDonald's, that would count as working.

The thing is that people will take stuff for free; again, human nature. If you have to work for what you are given, then chances are you won't want to work for it because if you did, you would have gotten a job in the first place.

You keep speaking using your ass instead of your brain. I say we find out the facts before we claim it a success or failure. You spout in talking points and nothing more.

What I spout is experience. I'll do one better: Maine did the very exact same thing.

In the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its ABAWD caseload plummeted by nearly 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.[5] This rapid drop in welfare dependence has a historical precedent: When work requirements were established in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program under President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, nationwide caseloads dropped by a similar amount, albeit over a few years rather than a few months.

Maine Food Stamp Work Requirement Cuts Non-Parent Caseload by 80 Percent

Maine like Georgia's regulation applies only to able bodied adults without dependents. The elderly are not considered by either state in the program. What this means is 90% of food stamp recipients are not part of the program. Existing federal regulation place a time limit on the use of food stamps for able bodied adults without dependents to 3 months over a 36 month period. Federal regulations require that during this time period they must be registered and actively looking for employment and must accept any job offered that they are qualified for. Since over 75% of these people have jobs in 30 to 60 days, this programs is accomplishing little if anything.

Instead creating these ridiculous programs that do little or nothing, what states should be doing is monitoring employment of recipients more closely. Although regulations require recipients to report income and stop using their SNAP card when they become ineligible, most people continue to use them until the state stops them which can be up a year after they are no longer eligible. The states are responsible for this but are ignoring it and as such, many millions are wasted.

What these requirements demonstrate is that most people on food stamps really don't need them. Let me ask: if all of a sudden we ended the food stamp program, do you really believe people would just stop eating?

Of course not. They would just start buying their own food. They may have to make cuts in other places such as their cigarettes, their alcohol, maybe get rid of their multiple pets they are feeding, but they are not about to stop eating. And when they are paying for their own food, it won't be frozen TV dinners, steaks or ribs. They would have to purchase food within their budget just like working people do every day.

My father retired over 20 years ago, same with my mother. Why are they not getting food stamps? Could it be because my father was responsible enough to secure his and my mothers retirement? Could it be because he worked hard all of his life and built a social security account that enabled him to retire comfortably?

It's my speculation that if you are elderly and getting food stamps, you probably didn't work much in your working life when you could have.

Arrogant idiots like you are pigs. You rely on every stereotype to attack people and unless you have asked them you d0on't have a clue. The fact is that you have to be at the poverty level to get food stamps. It is not something that is handed out willy nilly which you imply.

It's not? You mean the government investigates all applicants to see if they are receiving money from other sources? You mean the government interviews their employers to find out if they are refusing to work more hours that they were offered? You mean that government investigates who the applicant is living with such as a boyfriend, spouse, other welfare recipients, with their parents?

Government doesn't investigate any of those things. You make X amount of money, you have X amount of children, you get X amount of benefits, and that's it.