It's called reality, not a black and white political mindset which is why you don't understand. Did you click on the links? Knowing how government works I guarantee that at minimum 20% of those dropped were actually in qualification and couldn't fight it or didn't know how to fight it so the actual numbers should have been in the 50 to 60% range.
Hell you know as well as I that politicians can **** up a wet dream if they had control over it.
Here is where you nonsense gets out of hand.
There is no involuntary 'dropping'.......Understand yet? They are free to remain ON THE FOOD STAMPS...for as long as they can....they simply have to do something for them.
Obviously you didn't read the links, typical political hack, regardless of whether you wear blue or red blinders.
Really? I did read the links...they provide such gems as this one..
Helen Hanson got a letter from the state in January saying she was about to lose her food stamp benefits, she said, even though she should be exempt because she's in a work-skills program.
The 49-year-old, who's studying at Husson University to become a paralegal while working part-time at a grocery store, was eventually able to save her benefits with the help of an advocacy group. But the process she was forced to go through was infuriating and the fear that she might lose that support system was nerve-wracking, she said.
"We're not criminals," Hanson said. "I'm trying to benefit myself so I can get off food supplement. I'm tired of being poor."
Funny thing about your biased link...It says nothing about what happened....Did she provide proof that she was in a work skills program? Because the law is pretty simple. If she is, then she does not lose the benefit.....Strange how the article does not follow up on that, eh? Oh, its not strange at all. Its deliberately misleading. The claim she is meeting the requirements but received a letter....but nothing about if she remained...this leads the gullible reader, such as yourself, to think they just dropped her.....
Apparently you hack, black and white "thinkers" can't see past your own noses, typical. They talk about the newly created bureaucratic mess one has to navigate to prove they deserve the benefit. But the one thing you ignored from my original statement has to do with known human behavior when certain obstacles are placed in somes' path, a certain percentage simply gives up regardless of their eligibility.
Oh and my use of the word "dropped" was obviously a poor choice as again you being a black and white "thinker" would only interpret it one way. My bad, it was an inference to what would happen if one did not pursue the new requirements,
they would be dropped from the books, (lose the benefit). Hopefully Maine, and the other states that have enacted these laws include exemptions for the disabled and certain other situations or these deserving people are left out.
By the way, remember the article you linked in the OP? Nothing biased about that one...... Ooooh nooooo!!!!!!!!!
.
