When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

[koshergrl]

Broad-based categorical eligibility:


“Broad-based” categorical eligibility. These states have expanded categorical

eligibility in ways that make most, if not all, households with low incomes in a
state categorically eligible for SNAP. States could make all low-income
households in a state—including those without children—eligible for a TANF-
funded service directed at either the reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies or
promoting two-parent families goals of TANF. If a state opted to do so, any low income
household (under 200% of poverty, per regulation) could either receive,
or be authorized to receive, such a TANF-funded service. Based on the currently
available information, 40 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands have broad-based categorical eligibility policies."

40 states apply broad-based categorical eligibility, which means provide snap to households up to 200 percent of the FPL, in order to extend federal program eligibility to those households.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf

Up to 200%. The average is 130.

Yes, you were wrong.

Um no. The average maximum across the country is 130 but the average doesn't even go that high. It can be up to 200. You said 185 based on nothing.

You didn't say "average". You said unequivocally that the cat el standard was 130 percent, as an argument to my statement that it was 185 percent.

Wrong. Maybe in YOUR state, it's 130.

But in many states, it's between 185-200 percent. Averages had nothing to do with your comment, nor this topic.

In many states it is between 185 and 200? No. You are just making that up. The average across the country is 130. However that is just the maximum like I said. The average person within that standard doesn't even reach 130. That was always my point.

omg.

Time for you to go on ignore. I posted the information, the links, etc. Now you're just being stupid.

Bye.

 

[Flopper]

Did you even read the description of all of those? Very few people on SNAP get any sort of other government assistance related to being poor besides perhaps childcare assistance. Maybe they would get housing assistance as well but they would have to be dirt, dirt poor.

Most of those programs are available to low income families just as SNAP is. The one you bring up constantly, food stamps and child nutrition provide breakfast and lunch five days a week to kids in school, so food stamps only have to pay for 1 meal a day. If you think lot of people aren't on three, four or more of these programs you are not right in the head.
I spent several years providing transportation for three different single mothers that went to and applied for a half a dozen of these programs and they got every one of them.

Because many of the federally subsidized programs use the exact same income/deprivation standards. And that income standard is 185 percent of the federal poverty level. People can make up to 2x what the FEDERAL poverty level is, and qualify for all sorts of goodies that cost a lot. And even though they are working, their taxes most definitely DO NOT and WILL NEVER even come CLOSE to funding it. Not in a year, not in their entire lives.

No for SNAP the max is 130% of the poverty level and the average household on it doesn't even go the high.

Wrong.

185 percent of the federal poverty level is the categorical eligibility level. At that level, you are *categorically eligible* which means according to your income, you're eligible to receive snap.

Then your deductions are applied against your gross income, and of THAT amount, where you fall between 130 percent and 185 percent of the fpl determines how much of an allotment you receive. Many, many working households are open with $0.00 allotment. And the REASON they go through the trouble of having a snap case when they receive no allotment is that it makes them ELIGIBLE for OTHER PROGRAMS. If they go in for subsidized housing, energy assistance, school lunches, employment related daycare, head start/preschool free tuition, Obamaphones, foodbanks..all they have to do is provide their case number and they are considered automatically income eligible.

You need to back up your claim. Perhaps for some programs it is 185 but for SNAP specifically it is 130.

For WIC, the max varies by state. State agency's income standard must be between 100 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines, but cannot be more than 185 percent.

Food stamp eligibility requirements also vary by state. Individuals and households may qualify for benefits if they earn a gross monthly income that is 130% (or less) of the federal poverty level for a specific household size. Rules for the 185% don't seem to be the same for all states.

 

[Flopper]

Broad-based categorical eligibility:


“Broad-based” categorical eligibility. These states have expanded categorical

eligibility in ways that make most, if not all, households with low incomes in a
state categorically eligible for SNAP. States could make all low-income
households in a state—including those without children—eligible for a TANF-
funded service directed at either the reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies or
promoting two-parent families goals of TANF. If a state opted to do so, any low income
household (under 200% of poverty, per regulation) could either receive,
or be authorized to receive, such a TANF-funded service. Based on the currently
available information, 40 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin
Islands have broad-based categorical eligibility policies."

40 states apply broad-based categorical eligibility, which means provide snap to households up to 200 percent of the FPL, in order to extend federal program eligibility to those households.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42054.pdf

Up to 200%. The average is 130.

Yes, you were wrong.

Um no. The average maximum across the country is 130 but the average doesn't even go that high. It can be up to 200. You said 185 based on nothing.

You didn't say "average". You said unequivocally that the cat el standard was 130 percent, as an argument to my statement that it was 185 percent.

Wrong. Maybe in YOUR state, it's 130.

But in many states, it's between 185-200 percent. Averages had nothing to do with your comment, nor this topic.

In my state, the benefit at 130% poverty level is about $15 to $20/person.

That 15% of our population lives in poverty. That the vast majority of those on food stamps would starve without it.

Who told you that? Did that come from some blog or government website turned out by those with a vested interest in seeing these programs grow without limits?

Here are the actual facts. The average household (not simply one person) on food stamps has a gross income of $744 per MONTH. The average household gets about $133 a month in assistance.

Get food stampd

That 15% of our population lives in poverty. That the vast majority of those on food stamps would starve without it.

Who told you that? Did that come from some blog or government website turned out by those with a vested interest in seeing these programs grow without limits?

Here are the actual facts. The average household (not simply one person) on food stamps has a gross income of $744 per MONTH. The average household gets about $133 a month in assistance.

Do you think some of those folks get on any of these programs as well as food stamps?


"U.S. Welfare Programs fit into 13 large categories which are listed and described below. All U.S. Welfare Programs provide benefits to low-income individuals and families. The programs represent entitlements to all Americans but benefits are only paid to individuals and families with low income. For more information see theDefinition of Welfare Page, theEntitlement Programs Pageand theSocial Safety Net Page.
In addition to the 13 programs shown below, U.S. Welfare Programs also include the Medicaid Program which provides health care to low-income citizens and certain non-citizens.

Negative Income Tax– Two tax credit programs are administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to distribute money to low-income Americans. The tax credits include a “refundable” portion which is paid to individuals and families that owe no income tax for the year. Therefore, this portion of the tax credits act as “negative income tax”. The two programs are the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Child Tax Credit. More

SNAP– This is a food program for low-income individuals and families. SNAP used to be called the food stamp program and stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. It is run by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Participants receive a debit card which is accepted in most grocery stories for the purchase of food. More

Housing Assistance– Various housing programs are administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) including rental assistance, public housing and various community development grants. More.

SSI– This is a program to pay cash to low-income individuals over 65 years of age or under 65 if the individual is blind or disabled. SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income and is administered by the Social Security Administration. More

Pell Grants– This is a grant program administered by the Department of Education to distribute up to $5,550 to students from low-income households to promote postsecondary education (colleges and trade schools). More

TANF- This is a combined federal and state program that pays cash to low-income households with the goal of moving individuals from welfare to work. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More

Child Nutrition– These are food programs administered by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) which include school lunch, breakfast and after school programs. They target children from low-income households and provide free or reduced price meals. More

Head Start– This is a pre-school program available to kids from low-income families. It is administered by HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). More

Job Training Programs– These are a myriad of training programs administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to provide job training, displacement and employment services generally targeting low-income Americans. More

WIC - This is a program to provide Healthy food to pregnant women and children up to five years of age. WIC stands for Women, Infants and Children and is available to low-income households. More.

Child Care– This is a block grant program to states and local public and private agencies who administer child care programs to low-income families. It is administered by HHS. More

LIHEAP– This is a program to aid low-income households that pay a high proportion of household income for home energy, either heating or cooling a residential dwelling. LIHEAP stands for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and is administered by HHS. More

Lifeline (Obama Phone)– This is a program to provide discounted phone service, including cell phones, to low-income individuals. The program is administered by the Federal Communications Commission. More

Pell Grants– This is a grant program administered by the Department of Education to distribute up to $5,550 to students from low-income households to promote postsecondary education (colleges and trade schools). More

TANF- This is a combined federal and state program that pays cash to low-income households with the goal of moving individuals from welfare to work. TANF stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. More

Child Nutrition– These are food programs administered by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) which include school lunch, breakfast and after school programs. They target children from low-income households and provide free or reduced price meals. More

Head Start– This is a pre-school program available to kids from low-income families. It is administered by HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). More

Job Training Programs– These are a myriad of training programs administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) to provide job training, displacement and employment services generally targeting low-income Americans. More

WIC - This is a program to provide Healthy food to pregnant women and children up to five years of age. WIC stands for Women, Infants and Children and is available to low-income households. More.

Child Care– This is a block grant program to states and local public and private agencies who administer child care programs to low-income families. It is administered by HHS. More

LIHEAP– This is a program to aid low-income households that pay a high proportion of household income for home energy, either heating or cooling a residential dwelling. LIHEAP stands for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and is administered by HHS. More

Lifeline (Obama Phone)– This is a program to provide discounted phone service, including cell phones, to low-income individuals. The program is administered by the Federal Communications Commission. More"

Did you even read the description of all of those? Very few people on SNAP get any sort of other government assistance related to being poor besides perhaps childcare assistance. Maybe they would get housing assistance as well but they would have to be dirt, dirt poor.

Oooh..wrong. And wrong again.

People who are eligible for foodstamps are also financially eligible for most housing/energy subsidies.

No, housing subsidies are handled differently. Housing subsidies are based on how your income compares to average median income within the area. 80% qualifies but you don't stand much of chance of moving up the waiting list unless you are 30% or lower. Only disabled, over 55, and families qualify. There are also other requirements you must meet such as criminal background checks, credit checks, and rental history checks. Food stamps only have income, citizenship, and in some states resource requirements.

 

[Conservative65]

That's immaterial. As long as these people are pumping out illegitimate litters of kids( most unwanted except for the government bounty they provide) the issue is not the kids themselves. It is the irresponsible and cruel adults that produce them.

Lol so these kids who could potentially go hungry and malnourished during a critical time of brain and body development are not the issue?

You and the rest of you bleeding hearts who think it's the taxpayer's job to do what you won't even hold the sperm donor that helped produce them do can voluntarily do it. I have my own children to feed.

Let's say for whatever reason you lose custody if your children and they are forced to live somewhere else. Wouldn't you prefer it they live somewhere that guarantees they get adequate food? Government assistance or not?

Let's say you provide a few examples of those reasons instead of saying what MIGHT happen.

Dude you're missing the point. How it would happen is not the point. I am not saying it has any likelihood of happening I'm just stating if you lost your kids for whatever reason, wouldn't you prefer it they were financially taken care of state or not?

If being the key word.

 

[Conservative65]

James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and the man given credit for having contributed more to the principles in the Constitution than anyone else, said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." It's strange the bleeding hearts seem to find something in it that Madison couldn't find and he wrote it.

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

 

[danielpalos]

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Why do you believe what you do? Providing for the common Defense and general Welfare requires income transfers.

 

[irosie91]

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Why do you believe what you do? Providing for the common Defense and general Welfare requires income transfers.

***********RIGHT**********

 

[irosie91]

what is strange about it? All societies have institutions which are designed to provide aid to the helpless members.

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Bullshit----read the preamble

 

[Conservative65]

What's strange is that the bleeding hearts who say those institutions should be government bodies are saying that the Constitution gives the federal government authority to do something the person that was the most instrumental in writing it says doesn't exist. I'll take Madison's word over those who want to read into the Constitution what he said wasn't there.

As far as institutions existing, I agree. As far as them being under the control of the federal government, I agree with Madison.

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Bullshit----read the preamble

The bullshit comes from your MISINTERPRETATION.

 

[Conservative65]

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Bullshit----read the preamble

The bullshit comes from your MISINTERPRETATION. General welfare does not equal social welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

I understand-----I grew up in a "republican town"-----but there were "democratic elements" When the town people (those damned democrats influenced) decided to add CURBING--to the streets (it had something to do with that damned public welfare system "sewers" ----as opposed to septic tanks.)) there was some republican OUTCRY----since each
private householder was -----assessed. My parents had a corner house----so our assessment was bigger than those with only "front" to street property. I learned about taxes from my dad who said------"without taxes we would not have sidewalks" (but then again----of the McCarthy era he said------"if you were not a bit pink in the 1930s---you were stupid"<<<<< ie he was a damned jewish commie by definition in that Nazi town. ----sorry----but they did do the
curbs despite the petitions which my parents refused to sign---bleeding hearts that they were. ------I learned about unions from my mom when I saw a PICKETT line-----in front of a ----"factory" (me about age 8) I said "but they cannot prevent me from going in" ----my mom retorted "NEVER CROSS A PICKETT LINE" commie that she was.
SHEEEESH -------public welfare is the REASON we have ----
government

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Why do you believe what you do? Providing for the common Defense and general Welfare requires income transfers.

***********RIGHT**********

Thank you. Yes, I am right, which means you must be wrong and have nothing but fallacy for your Cause, since you didn't even attempt to advance a refutation with any supporting argument.

 

[Lakhota]

When arguing against SNAP for single mothers, why do repubs ignore the children themselves?

Good question. Why do they ignore pregnant women regarding abortion?

 

[danielpalos]

You're comparing State/local government authority to federal government authority. Apples and oranges and not valid.

Are you saying the purpose of government is public welfare? If so, you would be wrong.

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Bullshit----read the preamble

The bullshit comes from your MISINTERPRETATION. General welfare does not equal social welfare.

the general welfare must encompass any social welfare.

you only have a point in the case of a more "dogmatic" sergeant major general welfare.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

My objection is not the programs themselves. My objection is they are not only over run with waste fraud and abuse, that also the emphasis of the programs should be on ensuring children are being fed nutritious meals. Instead, SNAP ,etc can be used to buy junk food. That's wrong

Tell us how then you would force people on SNAP to eat healthy foods only.

 

[Conservative65]

public welfare is just about the only function of government

Public welfare where the government forces one person to support another isn't a function of government at all and nothing in the Constitution supports it.

Bullshit----read the preamble

The bullshit comes from your MISINTERPRETATION. General welfare does not equal social welfare.

the general welfare must encompass any social welfare.

you only have a point in the case of a more "dogmatic" sergeant major general welfare.

Only to bleeding hearts like you.

 

[danielpalos]

My objection is not the programs themselves. My objection is they are not only over run with waste fraud and abuse, that also the emphasis of the programs should be on ensuring children are being fed nutritious meals. Instead, SNAP ,etc can be used to buy junk food. That's wrong

Tell us how then you would force people on SNAP to eat healthy foods only.

Aren't we already redistributing income for education in our republic that should teach those fixed Standards?

 

[danielpalos]

Why does the right bother to complain about social costs; are they unable to muster up enough, moral of "goodwill toward men"?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Yup. I agree.

I have no problem with single parents as long as they can support themselves and the kids.

Why should the taxpayers of America be forced to bankroll their lives for them when they irresponsibly have kids they can't afford.

Stop the free ride and see how long it takes them to get off their asses, get a job and take care of themselves. As long as that free ride is there they won't do squat except take the handout of all that "free" money and don't think for a minute that they give shit one where that money comes from because they don't. As long as that EBT card has somebody elses money in it every month they could care less where it came from and who worked their asses off to earn it.

I'm one taxpayer who's sick and tired of being forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

Get a fucking job.

And as a result, if one child starves to death in order for 100 welfare recipients to be pushed into jobs, the toll is far too much.

 

[Conservative65]

By and large republicans don't give a fuck about anything not actively involved in earning a profit for some plutocrat.

By and large, bleeding heart Liberals don't mind telling the rest of us to butt out of a woman's choice of what she does with her body, having kids being one of those choice, then expecting the rest of us to support the results of that choice when the woman can't do it.

Yup. I agree.

I have no problem with single parents as long as they can support themselves and the kids.

Why should the taxpayers of America be forced to bankroll their lives for them when they irresponsibly have kids they can't afford.

Stop the free ride and see how long it takes them to get off their asses, get a job and take care of themselves. As long as that free ride is there they won't do squat except take the handout of all that "free" money and don't think for a minute that they give shit one where that money comes from because they don't. As long as that EBT card has somebody elses money in it every month they could care less where it came from and who worked their asses off to earn it.

I'm one taxpayer who's sick and tired of being forced to pay for their irresponsibility.

Get a fucking job.

And as a result, if one child starves to death in order for 100 welfare recipients to be pushed into jobs, the toll is far too much.

That one child wouldn't starve if the bleeding hearts that want to spend someone else's money would spend their own.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

My objection is not the programs themselves. My objection is they are not only over run with waste fraud and abuse, that also the emphasis of the programs should be on ensuring children are being fed nutritious meals. Instead, SNAP ,etc can be used to buy junk food. That's wrong

Tell us how then you would force people on SNAP to eat healthy foods only.

Aren't we already redistributing income for education in our republic that should teach those fixed Standards?

I would fully support as much education and campaigns as possible to get them to eat healthy. How effective that would be is the question.