GOP getting warmed up, cut a million from food stamp rolls. Getting ready or the election.

[Ray From Cleveland]

President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

From your article:
When House Republicans originally argued for a food stamp cut of between $20.5 billion and $39 billion, the White House threatened to veto both of those proposals. During his Friday speech, the president did not say whether he was satisfied with the final $8.7 billion figure, or even mention the cuts at all. Instead, he praised the food stamp program and said that the final Farm Bill preserved much-needed benefits.

I live in a poor state, with one of the highest #'s of food insecure kids. Some of our local schools ran lunch programs over the summer because for some kids that's their one guaranteed meal of the day. Our food banks have been struggling to keep their shelves stocked for years, there is never enough, and that's the safety net for when the food stamps run out. I just worry about the kids.

Back in the 60's and 70's, a government surplus truck came around and stopped in town once a month or so for people to come help themselves to big cans of peanut butter, 5 pound blocks of cheese, dehydrated potatoes, stuff like that. No paperwork, just get in line and get what you want. I have been reading that farmers throw out a good deal of their produce because it isn't perfect or the price is too low to transport to market. If we can find a really good way to share what we currently throw away, maybe Food Stamps wouldn't be half so necessary.

That's only if people want it.

Over here they have deer cullings because of the over population. Of course people bitch and complain about it because the deer are so cute. If they had heads like pigs, probably nobody would complain. Anyway they hired professional hunters for the job and figured they would gain more favorability of the public by donating the food to homeless shelters and food banks. Guess what? The homeless and hungry didn't want any deer meat. It all had to be thrown out.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Boo-hoo-hoo. For every cherry-picked unfortunate case that you can cite, I can cite five or six cases of genuinely able-bodied people playing the system to get benefits they don't deserve. I personally know two people who get disability and another government payment even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I used to have a neighbor in the Northeast who would work construction jobs 6 months and 1 day and then quit and collect unemployment and food stamps. He was proud of how "clever" he was. My wife and his wife were good friends. By the way, guess how he voted?

A couple of years ago I had to evict a family from one of my rental units. It was an unmarried couple with two children: one three years old and the other fourteen.

The male worked a full time job but not one hour over 40. The female stayed home supposedly home schooling her kids. But they kept getting further and further behind on rent and that forced me to intervene.

I suggested that the female get a part-time job on the weekends while her boyfriend could sit home with the kids. She wouldn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month of food stamps. Any income on her part would interfere with those benefits.

Long story short, I evicted the family, then sued him in court for back rent, damage to the rental unit and my legal fees. All for what? Food stamps.

Neither mom nor dad drank or used drugs, but they smoked cigarettes along with their 14 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco to. They had three cats and a large dog. They had cable television, an Obama phone and high speed internet, but we taxpayers were buying their food.

Such accounts could be multiplied many times over, but liberals only talk about the unfortunate cases--the ones they know will pull on heart strings--and ignore the far more numerous cases of abuse and even fraud.

Any complainers can come here to my grocery store and see what's going on with these food stamps. They get in front of me all the time for some reason, and throw their food items on the belt. Then they whip out the flowers, greetings cards, the beer and wine, the cigarettes, the huge bags of dog food and cat litter. That they pay with cash because they can't buy any of those items on food stamps.

At the very least, if you're going to get government assistance, they should have agents come and check out the homes these people live in. If there are any animals in that house, you lose your food stamps.

 

[Preacher]

Over 1 million face loss of food aid over work requirements

In Tennessee, Terry Work said her 27-year-old deaf son recently was denied disability payments, meaning he is considered able-bodied. And that means he stands to lose his food stamps, even though she said her son has trouble keeping a job because of his deafness.

North Carolina's Republican-led government enacted a law last fall accelerating implementation of the work requirements and barring the state from seeking waivers unless there is a natural disaster. State Sen. Ralph Hise said the state was doing a disservice to the unemployed by providing them long-term food aid.

A study of 4,145 food stamp recipients in Franklin County, Ohio, who became subject to work requirements between December 2013 and February 2015 found that more than 30 percent said they had physical or mental limitations that affected their ability to work. A similar percentage had no high school diploma or equivalency degree. And 61 percent lacked a driver's license.

---------------------------------

Don't paint hard hearted Republicans with a broad brush.

So STATES are doing things and you blame the entire republican party..? Interesting. If they are disabled TRULY then they would be found to be so. People CAN work and still get FS.

 

[OldLady]

President Obama signs $8.7 billion food stamp cut into law

From your article:
When House Republicans originally argued for a food stamp cut of between $20.5 billion and $39 billion, the White House threatened to veto both of those proposals. During his Friday speech, the president did not say whether he was satisfied with the final $8.7 billion figure, or even mention the cuts at all. Instead, he praised the food stamp program and said that the final Farm Bill preserved much-needed benefits.

I live in a poor state, with one of the highest #'s of food insecure kids. Some of our local schools ran lunch programs over the summer because for some kids that's their one guaranteed meal of the day. Our food banks have been struggling to keep their shelves stocked for years, there is never enough, and that's the safety net for when the food stamps run out. I just worry about the kids.

Back in the 60's and 70's, a government surplus truck came around and stopped in town once a month or so for people to come help themselves to big cans of peanut butter, 5 pound blocks of cheese, dehydrated potatoes, stuff like that. No paperwork, just get in line and get what you want. I have been reading that farmers throw out a good deal of their produce because it isn't perfect or the price is too low to transport to market. If we can find a really good way to share what we currently throw away, maybe Food Stamps wouldn't be half so necessary.

That's only if people want it.

Over here they have deer cullings because of the over population. Of course people bitch and complain about it because the deer are so cute. If they had heads like pigs, probably nobody would complain. Anyway they hired professional hunters for the job and figured they would gain more favorability of the public by donating the food to homeless shelters and food banks. Guess what? The homeless and hungry didn't want any deer meat. It all had to be thrown out.

Do you live in Cleveland, really? In New York where my Dad lived, they sent the cullings to the nursing homes and it was WELL appreciated. Maybe young people don't eat Bambi anymore, but I think your problem is a local phenomenon.

 

[Timmy]

Boo-hoo-hoo. For every cherry-picked unfortunate case that you can cite, I can cite five or six cases of genuinely able-bodied people playing the system to get benefits they don't deserve. I personally know two people who get disability and another government payment even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I used to have a neighbor in the Northeast who would work construction jobs 6 months and 1 day and then quit and collect unemployment and food stamps. He was proud of how "clever" he was. My wife and his wife were good friends. By the way, guess how he voted?

A couple of years ago I had to evict a family from one of my rental units. It was an unmarried couple with two children: one three years old and the other fourteen.

The male worked a full time job but not one hour over 40. The female stayed home supposedly home schooling her kids. But they kept getting further and further behind on rent and that forced me to intervene.

I suggested that the female get a part-time job on the weekends while her boyfriend could sit home with the kids. She wouldn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month of food stamps. Any income on her part would interfere with those benefits.

Long story short, I evicted the family, then sued him in court for back rent, damage to the rental unit and my legal fees. All for what? Food stamps.

Neither mom nor dad drank or used drugs, but they smoked cigarettes along with their 14 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco to. They had three cats and a large dog. They had cable television, an Obama phone and high speed internet, but we taxpayers were buying their food.

Such accounts could be multiplied many times over, but liberals only talk about the unfortunate cases--the ones they know will pull on heart strings--and ignore the far more numerous cases of abuse and even fraud.

Any complainers can come here to my grocery store and see what's going on with these food stamps. They get in front of me all the time for some reason, and throw their food items on the belt. Then they whip out the flowers, greetings cards, the beer and wine, the cigarettes, the huge bags of dog food and cat litter. That they pay with cash because they can't buy any of those items on food stamps.

At the very least, if you're going to get government assistance, they should have agents come and check out the homes these people live in. If there are any animals in that house, you lose your food stamps.

Yeah but then people would be flooding animal shelters . Who wants that .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

food stamps have been on the decline without any help from the government, ie, Republicans.

Uh.......... right:

Over 1 million face loss of food aid over work requirements

Posted: Jan 30, 2016 11:24 AM ESTUpdated: Jan 31, 2016 11:37 AM EST
By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - More than 1 million low-income residents in 21 states could soon lose their government food stamps if they fail to meet work requirements that began kicking in this month.
The rule change in the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was triggered by the improving economy - specifically, falling unemployment. But it is raising concerns among the poor, social service providers and food pantry workers, who fear an influx of hungry people.

Recent experience in other states indicates that most of those affected will probably not meet the work requirements and will be cut off from food stamps.

For many people, "it means less food, less adequate nutrition. And over the span of time, that can certainly have an impact on health - and the health care system," said Dave Krepcho, president and chief executive of the Second Harvest Food Bank of Central Florida.

Advocates say some adults trying to find work face a host of obstacles, including criminal records, disabilities or lack of a driver's license.

The work-for-food requirements were first enacted under the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton and sponsored by then-Rep. John Kasich, who is now Ohio's governor and a Republican candidate for president.

The provision applies to able-bodied adults ages 18 through 49 who have no children or other dependents in their home. It requires them to work, volunteer or attend education or job-training courses at least 80 hours a month to receive food aid. If they don't, their benefits are cut off after three months.

Over 1 million face loss of food aid over work requirements

SNAP Costs Declining, Expected to Fall Much Further | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

do try and keep up ..

I am keeping up--you're not.

Even your article points out that the main reason food stamps are declining is because of government reduction.

Congress passes $8.7 billion food stamp cut

 

[Oldstyle]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Ah! If we could just use the constitution as a panacea! Let's harken back to the 18th century when there were no paved roads, rum was used as an anesthetic and only White property owning men could vote! The good old days for just White property owning men.

Not sure whether you're aware, but the constitution prohibits slavery.

It also prohibits food stamps.

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Or subsidizing oil companies, yet, they get more than the food stamp budget..

The constition also prohibits subsidizing oil companies.

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Boo-hoo-hoo. For every cherry-picked unfortunate case that you can cite, I can cite five or six cases of genuinely able-bodied people playing the system to get benefits they don't deserve. I personally know two people who get disability and another government payment even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I used to have a neighbor in the Northeast who would work construction jobs 6 months and 1 day and then quit and collect unemployment and food stamps. He was proud of how "clever" he was. My wife and his wife were good friends. By the way, guess how he voted?

A couple of years ago I had to evict a family from one of my rental units. It was an unmarried couple with two children: one three years old and the other fourteen.

The male worked a full time job but not one hour over 40. The female stayed home supposedly home schooling her kids. But they kept getting further and further behind on rent and that forced me to intervene.

I suggested that the female get a part-time job on the weekends while her boyfriend could sit home with the kids. She wouldn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month of food stamps. Any income on her part would interfere with those benefits.

Long story short, I evicted the family, then sued him in court for back rent, damage to the rental unit and my legal fees. All for what? Food stamps.

Neither mom nor dad drank or used drugs, but they smoked cigarettes along with their 14 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco to. They had three cats and a large dog. They had cable television, an Obama phone and high speed internet, but we taxpayers were buying their food.

Such accounts could be multiplied many times over, but liberals only talk about the unfortunate cases--the ones they know will pull on heart strings--and ignore the far more numerous cases of abuse and even fraud.

Any complainers can come here to my grocery store and see what's going on with these food stamps. They get in front of me all the time for some reason, and throw their food items on the belt. Then they whip out the flowers, greetings cards, the beer and wine, the cigarettes, the huge bags of dog food and cat litter. That they pay with cash because they can't buy any of those items on food stamps.

At the very least, if you're going to get government assistance, they should have agents come and check out the homes these people live in. If there are any animals in that house, you lose your food stamps.

Yeah but then people would be flooding animal shelters . Who wants that .

I do.

 

[OldLady]

Boo-hoo-hoo. For every cherry-picked unfortunate case that you can cite, I can cite five or six cases of genuinely able-bodied people playing the system to get benefits they don't deserve. I personally know two people who get disability and another government payment even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I used to have a neighbor in the Northeast who would work construction jobs 6 months and 1 day and then quit and collect unemployment and food stamps. He was proud of how "clever" he was. My wife and his wife were good friends. By the way, guess how he voted?

A couple of years ago I had to evict a family from one of my rental units. It was an unmarried couple with two children: one three years old and the other fourteen.

The male worked a full time job but not one hour over 40. The female stayed home supposedly home schooling her kids. But they kept getting further and further behind on rent and that forced me to intervene.

I suggested that the female get a part-time job on the weekends while her boyfriend could sit home with the kids. She wouldn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month of food stamps. Any income on her part would interfere with those benefits.

Long story short, I evicted the family, then sued him in court for back rent, damage to the rental unit and my legal fees. All for what? Food stamps.

Neither mom nor dad drank or used drugs, but they smoked cigarettes along with their 14 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco to. They had three cats and a large dog. They had cable television, an Obama phone and high speed internet, but we taxpayers were buying their food.

Such accounts could be multiplied many times over, but liberals only talk about the unfortunate cases--the ones they know will pull on heart strings--and ignore the far more numerous cases of abuse and even fraud.

Any complainers can come here to my grocery store and see what's going on with these food stamps. They get in front of me all the time for some reason, and throw their food items on the belt. Then they whip out the flowers, greetings cards, the beer and wine, the cigarettes, the huge bags of dog food and cat litter. That they pay with cash because they can't buy any of those items on food stamps.

At the very least, if you're going to get government assistance, they should have agents come and check out the homes these people live in. If there are any animals in that house, you lose your food stamps.

I've seen people buy lobster tails with Food Stamps and when I was a social worker I saw some fraud and some clever folks milking the system for every dime they could get. Humans are clever and some aren't honest. Same whether you're rich or poor, green or purple.
I don't like the multi-generational dependence on welfare, either, but how do we stop it without becoming like India with people living in boxes and begging on the streets? We have a little of that, but add millions more, including families? I don't know.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Boo-hoo-hoo. For every cherry-picked unfortunate case that you can cite, I can cite five or six cases of genuinely able-bodied people playing the system to get benefits they don't deserve. I personally know two people who get disability and another government payment even though they are perfectly capable of working.

I used to have a neighbor in the Northeast who would work construction jobs 6 months and 1 day and then quit and collect unemployment and food stamps. He was proud of how "clever" he was. My wife and his wife were good friends. By the way, guess how he voted?

A couple of years ago I had to evict a family from one of my rental units. It was an unmarried couple with two children: one three years old and the other fourteen.

The male worked a full time job but not one hour over 40. The female stayed home supposedly home schooling her kids. But they kept getting further and further behind on rent and that forced me to intervene.

I suggested that the female get a part-time job on the weekends while her boyfriend could sit home with the kids. She wouldn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month of food stamps. Any income on her part would interfere with those benefits.

Long story short, I evicted the family, then sued him in court for back rent, damage to the rental unit and my legal fees. All for what? Food stamps.

Neither mom nor dad drank or used drugs, but they smoked cigarettes along with their 14 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco to. They had three cats and a large dog. They had cable television, an Obama phone and high speed internet, but we taxpayers were buying their food.

Such accounts could be multiplied many times over, but liberals only talk about the unfortunate cases--the ones they know will pull on heart strings--and ignore the far more numerous cases of abuse and even fraud.

Any complainers can come here to my grocery store and see what's going on with these food stamps. They get in front of me all the time for some reason, and throw their food items on the belt. Then they whip out the flowers, greetings cards, the beer and wine, the cigarettes, the huge bags of dog food and cat litter. That they pay with cash because they can't buy any of those items on food stamps.

At the very least, if you're going to get government assistance, they should have agents come and check out the homes these people live in. If there are any animals in that house, you lose your food stamps.

I've seen people buy lobster tails with Food Stamps and when I was a social worker I saw some fraud and some clever folks milking the system for every dime they could get. Humans are clever and some aren't honest. Same whether you're rich or poor, green or purple.
I don't like the multi-generational dependence on welfare, either, but how do we stop it without becoming like India with people living in boxes and begging on the streets? We have a little of that, but add millions more, including families? I don't know.

When you're hungry enough, you'll go to work and earn money to buy food and shelter. But as long as there's always a way out, people will take it.

 

[Oldstyle]

We've had an explosion in disability claims because people are transitioning from receiving unemployment benefits to receiving disability benefits. We've created an underclass that exists primarily through government handouts and they will not go back to work as long as there is any means to remain supported by taxpayers. What was supposed to be a "safety net" has become a "hammock" and anyone who says that enough is enough will be accused of being heartless.

 

[OldLady]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Ah! If we could just use the constitution as a panacea! Let's harken back to the 18th century when there were no paved roads, rum was used as an anesthetic and only White property owning men could vote! The good old days for just White property owning men.

Not sure whether you're aware, but the constitution prohibits slavery.

It also prohibits food stamps.

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Or subsidizing oil companies, yet, they get more than the food stamp budget..

The constition also prohibits subsidizing oil companies.

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

To be fair, we've had some good spells between LBJ and now. Not right now, obviously. And HeadStart WAS and IS a great program that's helped a lot of kids. We have a lot more minorities in executive positions and going to college, far more integration in schools and neighborhoods. The programs have helped. Nothing's perfect.

 

[OldLady]

We've had an explosion in disability claims because people are transitioning from receiving unemployment benefits to receiving disability benefits. We've created an underclass that exists primarily through government handouts and they will not go back to work as long as there is any means to remain supported by taxpayers. What was supposed to be a "safety net" has become a "hammock" and anyone who says that enough is enough will be accused of being heartless.

Part of the reason for that is the way the safety net is designed. A single mother with two young children receives welfare, food stamps, Medicaid for herself and her kids, heating oil assistance, low income housing. Why in hell would she agree to go to work at minimum wage, give half of it to a daycare provider, and lose the medical benefits for her family and all the rest? Not too many people are THAT stupid. People on welfare are not generally well educated and highly employable, just so you know.

 

[Oldstyle]

We've had an explosion in disability claims because people are transitioning from receiving unemployment benefits to receiving disability benefits. We've created an underclass that exists primarily through government handouts and they will not go back to work as long as there is any means to remain supported by taxpayers. What was supposed to be a "safety net" has become a "hammock" and anyone who says that enough is enough will be accused of being heartless.

Part of the reason for that is the way the safety net is designed. A single mother with two young children receives welfare, food stamps, Medicaid for herself and her kids, heating oil assistance, low income housing. Why in hell would she agree to go to work at minimum wage, give half of it to a daycare provider, and lose the medical benefits for her family and all the rest? Not too many people are THAT stupid. People on welfare are not generally well educated and highly employable, just so you know.

Since it doesn't take "job skills" to have two kids...why would you expect a single mother to become well educated or be highly employable, OldLady? Unfortunately for decades we set up a system that incentivized single mother households in effect "rewarding" behavior that is harmful to both the mother and the children. As someone who was involved in Social Services I'm sure you know how hard it is for a single mother with two kids to get off of public assistance once she's on it.

 

[Nosmo King]

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Ah! If we could just use the constitution as a panacea! Let's harken back to the 18th century when there were no paved roads, rum was used as an anesthetic and only White property owning men could vote! The good old days for just White property owning men.

Not sure whether you're aware, but the constitution prohibits slavery.

It also prohibits food stamps.

The fed gov should cut food stamps. There is no constitutional authorization for them.

Or subsidizing oil companies, yet, they get more than the food stamp budget..

The constition also prohibits subsidizing oil companies.

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Oldstyle]

It is indeed seen to be "stupid" by many people to work for minimum wage when you can make more in benefits sitting at home on your couch watching soap operas all day but in fact the "smart" thing is not to have kids until you can afford them...to start out at a minimum wage job and gradually learn the job skills to get paid more. There is no ceiling to what you can achieve if you go that route. If you choose the path of public assistance then you have in fact trapped yourself in a sort of poverty "limbo"...probably for the rest of your life and what's worse...you've probably set your children up to follow in your footsteps.

 

[Oldstyle]

Ah! If we could just use the constitution as a panacea! Let's harken back to the 18th century when there were no paved roads, rum was used as an anesthetic and only White property owning men could vote! The good old days for just White property owning men.

Not sure whether you're aware, but the constitution prohibits slavery.

It also prohibits food stamps.

Or subsidizing oil companies, yet, they get more than the food stamp budget..

The constition also prohibits subsidizing oil companies.

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We've had an explosion in disability claims because people are transitioning from receiving unemployment benefits to receiving disability benefits. We've created an underclass that exists primarily through government handouts and they will not go back to work as long as there is any means to remain supported by taxpayers. What was supposed to be a "safety net" has become a "hammock" and anyone who says that enough is enough will be accused of being heartless.

Part of the reason for that is the way the safety net is designed. A single mother with two young children receives welfare, food stamps, Medicaid for herself and her kids, heating oil assistance, low income housing. Why in hell would she agree to go to work at minimum wage, give half of it to a daycare provider, and lose the medical benefits for her family and all the rest? Not too many people are THAT stupid. People on welfare are not generally well educated and highly employable, just so you know.

Well they're smart enough to figure that out.

I went to my local Home Depot a few years ago and noticed they put a guard by the door, except by the entrance door instead of the exit. Even though I found it strange, I didn't think much of it.

Then through our local paper I leaned why. It seems that there were lowlifes going through the parking lot and picking up receipts that people threw away on the ground. The lowlifes would gather those receipts, and go inside of Home Depot, pick up the exact same items, and then go to the exchange counter right by the entrance door and exchange the items for cash.

That they have the brains for. But to get a job and earn money instead, they can't figure that one out.

As for children, if it were up to me, anybody applying for government assistance wouldn't get one red cent until they were fixed first. Too many people have children just to increase their benefits at the taxpayers cost. The more kids you have, the more food stamps you get, the bigger welfare check, the bigger house in the suburbs on HUD.

 

[Nosmo King]

Not sure whether you're aware, but the constitution prohibits slavery.

It also prohibits food stamps.
The constition also prohibits subsidizing oil companies.

Not that I don't agree with the "idea" that you are putting forward, but please - where the hell in the Constitution does it state that?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Feeding the hungry citizens insures domestic tranquility, promotes their general welfare and helps them secure the blessings of liberty.

With all due respect, Nosmo...it's been over fifty years since LBJ began the War on Poverty in this country by introducing a whole series of entitlement programs. Has poverty decreased? Are we more tranquil? More secure? Is our general welfare better?

Let's be honest with ourselves and ask if what we've done to "help" hasn't in fact "hindered"!

Perhaps you never encountered real poverty. Real poverty as is existed before the Great Society programs. Real poverty that reduced lifespans, retarded childhood development, repressed any chance at what we enjoy as civilized life today.

Only someone without real life perspective could proffer an argument that smile government largess is a hinderence to the pursuit of happiness.

Once again, Nosmo...have those Great Society programs helped the poor in the inner cities or hurt them? We've got 50 years of those programs and we still have rampant poverty. So have your entitlements REALLY brought happiness to those who exist under them? I would argue that "real life" has taught me that having a job that fulfills you as a person is what brings happiness to people.

Having a job is the gold standard. If the policies of providing food and shelter and medicine to the poor have 'hindered' them, what have the policies of reducing worker's rights, reducing workplace safety regulations, off shoring jobs, reducing wages and not providing equal pay for equal work done to the poor?

Liberals provide food, education, shelter and medicine. Conservatives provide an easier way for employers to exploit workers.

Who's hindering the poor?

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Can't those welfare recipients go to other states such as New York or California? That would just mean more democratic voters for them.