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

[hortysir]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

Poor people shouldn't have kids.

Stupid people shouldn't either, but WYGD?!

 

[Kondor3]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

What Republican(s) said this?

 

[sealybobo]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

I'm a liberal so I get what you are saying but I'd like to make a few points for the other side.

A. Don't have kids you no we can't afford. Of course we should pay for the kids to have food but the republican tough love does seem to work. People tend to find jobs when the unemployment runs out. Snyder in michigan lowered it to 20 weeks in the toughest recession. And most people found jobs when the free money stops coming in.

B. We see their baby daddy's or the grandparents can afford it but they ain't chipping in cause we are. I knew a poor girl who's parents were rich and the dad was a dead beat dad. She got gov housing welfare and food stamps. I'm in favor of these programs but not for life.

C. We need these single moms to move out of the ghetto where they can find work. And the dads must pay.

D. This needs to stop. Poor women need to be using IUD"s. Pills not good enough.

Just seems like we can figure this out. You can't call it big brother when you're asking for charity.

 

[Dana7360]

Dana, I was referring to a news story on a station in West Virginia that borders my state. They had to sue to get the information, and when they did there was a pile of papers on the desk of the news caster. No names, just account #'s. Hundreds of them with illegal purchases at liquor stores and strip clubs. They were able to walk right in a swipe the card. That was the reason for the investigation. I don't know if that investigation brought about change or not. I am all for helping people but have a problem when it enables the parents, at the expense of the children.

The reason why the cards could be used at those establishments is because west virginia includes welfare cash payments in the card. So west virginia puts the food stamps and the cash welfare payments on that one card.

Not all states do that. My state doesn't. An EBT card can only be used to buy food.

Maybe west virginia should follow my state's lead and not allow cash welfare to be put on that card. They should definitely block any transaction from a bar or strip club. I guess the government in west virginia isn't that smart.

 

[Billy000]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

I'm a liberal so I get what you are saying but I'd like to make a few points for the other side.

A. Don't have kids you no we can't afford. Of course we should pay for the kids to have food but the republican tough love does seem to work. People tend to find jobs when the unemployment runs out. Snyder in michigan lowered it to 20 weeks in the toughest recession. And most people found jobs when the free money stops coming in.

B. We see their baby daddy's or the grandparents can afford it but they ain't chipping in cause we are. I knew a poor girl who's parents were rich and the dad was a dead beat dad. She got gov housing welfare and food stamps. I'm in favor of these programs but not for life.

C. We need these single moms to move out of the ghetto where they can find work. And the dads must pay.

D. This needs to stop. Poor women need to be using IUD"s. Pills not good enough.

Just seems like we can figure this out. You can't call it big brother when you're asking for charity.

A. I think we can all agree a women shouldn't have kids she can't afford, but shit happens and it isn't always all her fault. The father plays a role in this and i do agree they must contribute. Whoever is at fault, the issue is the kids themselves.

B. Given how dirt poor you must be to qualify for assistance, there really isnt much incentive to not find a better job because of it.

C. low wage jobs significantly out number higher pay jobs. This means millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs. The soliton for this just isn't simple.

D. Agreed. You know society just isn't perfect. It has many problems. Crime is another thing that we have to deal with. We as citizens must pay taxes to deal with this crap. Let's try to minimize it sure, but we have to accept it will happen.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

I'm a liberal so I get what you are saying but I'd like to make a few points for the other side.

A. Don't have kids you no we can't afford. Of course we should pay for the kids to have food but the republican tough love does seem to work. People tend to find jobs when the unemployment runs out. Snyder in michigan lowered it to 20 weeks in the toughest recession. And most people found jobs when the free money stops coming in.

B. We see their baby daddy's or the grandparents can afford it but they ain't chipping in cause we are. I knew a poor girl who's parents were rich and the dad was a dead beat dad. She got gov housing welfare and food stamps. I'm in favor of these programs but not for life.

C. We need these single moms to move out of the ghetto where they can find work. And the dads must pay.

D. This needs to stop. Poor women need to be using IUD"s. Pills not good enough.

Just seems like we can figure this out. You can't call it big brother when you're asking for charity.

I dont even know you anymore....and I like it.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

They say "well she shouldn't have had kids in the first place therefore she shouldn't get any ."

Of course as always republicans reason the way mentally retarded people do so you must remind them the kids themselves benefit from this welfare. It also doesn't help that low wage jobs largely outnumber higher wage jobs so this is a difficult situation for this family as you could imagine.

So repubs, shouldn't those kids born to a broke caregiver deserve food stamps assistance? After all, 83% of food stamp funding goes to households with at least one dependent living there.

I'm a liberal so I get what you are saying but I'd like to make a few points for the other side.

A. Don't have kids you no we can't afford. Of course we should pay for the kids to have food but the republican tough love does seem to work. People tend to find jobs when the unemployment runs out. Snyder in michigan lowered it to 20 weeks in the toughest recession. And most people found jobs when the free money stops coming in.

B. We see their baby daddy's or the grandparents can afford it but they ain't chipping in cause we are. I knew a poor girl who's parents were rich and the dad was a dead beat dad. She got gov housing welfare and food stamps. I'm in favor of these programs but not for life.

C. We need these single moms to move out of the ghetto where they can find work. And the dads must pay.

D. This needs to stop. Poor women need to be using IUD"s. Pills not good enough.

Just seems like we can figure this out. You can't call it big brother when you're asking for charity.

A. I think we can all agree a women shouldn't have kids she can't afford, but shit happens and it isn't always all her fault. The father plays a role in this and i do agree they must contribute. Whoever is at fault, the issue is the kids themselves.

B. Given how dirt poor you must be to qualify for assistance, there really isnt much incentive to not find a better job because of it.

C. low wage jobs significantly out number higher pay jobs. This means millions of people HAVE NO CHOICE but to accept low wage jobs. The soliton for this just isn't simple.

D. Agreed. You know society just isn't perfect. It has many problems. Crime is another thing that we have to deal with. We as citizens must pay taxes to deal with this crap. Let's try to minimize it sure, but we have to accept it will happen.

I dont think you'll find a single republican who will begrudge a needy person help.
It's the ones who make a life of it we oppose.
Personally I've never used gov assistance but I know a few people who have.
All of them had one thing in common...they all had children before they were ready.

 

[Flopper]

Dana, I was referring to a news story on a station in West Virginia that borders my state. They had to sue to get the information, and when they did there was a pile of papers on the desk of the news caster. No names, just account #'s. Hundreds of them with illegal purchases at liquor stores and strip clubs. They were able to walk right in a swipe the card. That was the reason for the investigation. I don't know if that investigation brought about change or not. I am all for helping people but have a problem when it enables the parents, at the expense of the children.

The reason why the cards could be used at those establishments is because west virginia includes welfare cash payments in the card. So west virginia puts the food stamps and the cash welfare payments on that one card.

Not all states do that. My state doesn't. An EBT card can only be used to buy food.

Maybe west virginia should follow my state's lead and not allow cash welfare to be put on that card. They should definitely block any transaction from a bar or strip club. I guess the government in west virginia isn't that smart.

People often forget that most government support programs are basically state programs funded in part by the federal government. The feds issue guidelines but it's the states that make the rules and enforce them. That why there's huge variation in government programs from state to state.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"The actual occurrence of drug use by SNAP recipients is extremely low"..And you know this how...?
Look, those that use the drug angle are barking at the moon...
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

Lol try educating yourself on factual information will you? Food stamps fraud is actually very statistically low. Drug use is also very uncommon. Here are the myths. I suggest reading:

Six Myths About Food Stamps BillMoyers.com

Bill Moyers? Yes, fair and balanced, he is.
The fraud is in the lack of enforcement of the rules which qualifies those to be recipients. The waste is in the excessive numbers of employees and bureaucrats who get paid by us taxpayers to keep and grow the things.

Bill moyers used government data as their sources.

Yes. Data put out by self serving bureaucrats.

Um no. This is data that is independently verified.

Sez you......Lemme ask.....What would be the motivation on the part of any Washington bureaucrat to release a report that could potentially jeopardize their department or their very status as a government employee?

 

[thereisnospoon]

What problem?

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.

Link?.....
Oh, does that amount count the total amount of public assistance plus any legitimate income?

Um the $744 per month is the legitimate income.

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Feeding America

Is it....So the report ignores the possibility that these people may be receiving other types of social program entitlements? Great.....Hence the reason why the figures you present are self serving..

 

[thereisnospoon]

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

Personal choice. If someone wants to eat crap and feed their family that. What's the difference? They're screwing themselves. We as a nation tried to help them and they made a bad choice.

Yeah Great...Then we get stupid shit such as Obamacare. Why? Because our government has made it law that we must pay for the bad choices made by people on public assistance.

I understand your frustration-----but there are OTHER WAYS to reform people other than starving them and their children.
I do not like OBAMA CARE-----but I have reasons based on my own profession-------FOOD STAMPS? don't touch it.....
the people of the USA have an absolute right to EAT in our land of plenty. I support any measures that FEED THE PEOPLE (it is consistent with my profession----sorry----
we are making a big mistake in not encouraging MORE agriculture------the well being of the world depends on agriculture and it is more valuable an asset than OIL

Nobody is proposing to starve anyone. That is merely a liberal talking point mixed in with hysteria. I will not entertain any discussion with any member who uses this cliche as a point of debate.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

What are you talking about?

Junk food is much cheaper than "basic nutritious foods". How many nutritious, complete meals for the whole family do you think $130 bucks a month can buy?

It's as if you live in an alternate reality.

 

[Billy000]

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.

Link?.....
Oh, does that amount count the total amount of public assistance plus any legitimate income?

Um the $744 per month is the legitimate income.

SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Feeding America

Is it....So the report ignores the possibility that these people may be receiving other types of social program entitlements? Great.....Hence the reason why the figures you present are self serving..

Some of them do but it is for disability and it largely depends on how much they are getting. There isn't any other program they would qualify for in terms of housing assistance or TANF.

 

[Papageorgio]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

What are you talking about?

Junk food is much cheaper than "basic nutritious foods". How many nutritious, complete meals for the whole family do you think $130 bucks a month can buy?

It's as if you live in an alternate reality.

I went to several government and other websites, the $133 is the average per person not per family and that is incorrect according to this site.

How Much Could I Receive Food and Nutrition Service

$ 649 is more than my family of four spends on food.

 

[irosie91]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

What are you talking about?

Junk food is much cheaper than "basic nutritious foods". How many nutritious, complete meals for the whole family do you think $130 bucks a month can buy?

It's as if you live in an alternate reality.

I went to several government and other websites, the $133 is the average per person not per family. So to say feeding the whole family for $130 is not correct.

you are absolutely correct-----the food stamp program is VERY GENEROUS------perhaps it should be cut back a bit.
-----It actually----(IMHO) does not take $133.00 to feed
EACH member of a large family.-----It logically takes that much to feed one. But if there are ten people in a family-----I see no reason for a $ 13,00.00 stipend per month ----I am a housewife (sorta) and just see no reason for it.
I grew up in a family of seven (ie I had four sibs)----my mom
could have done much better than that-----in fact she did in times of stress. She was quite resourceful when my dad
ended up hospitalized for more than a year---------not fun but she did it

 

[Papageorgio]

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

What are you talking about?

Junk food is much cheaper than "basic nutritious foods". How many nutritious, complete meals for the whole family do you think $130 bucks a month can buy?

It's as if you live in an alternate reality.

I went to several government and other websites, the $133 is the average per person not per family. So to say feeding the whole family for $130 is not correct.

you are absolutely correct-----the food stamp program is VERY GENEROUS------perhaps it should be cut back a bit.
-----It actually----(IMHO) does not take $133.00 to feed
EACH member of a large family.-----It logically takes that much to feed one. But if there are ten people in a family-----I see no reason for a $ 13,00.00 stipend per month ----I am a housewife (sorta) and just see no reason for it.
I grew up in a family of seven (ie I had four sibs)----my mom
could have done much better than that-----in fact she did in times of stress. She was quite resourceful when my dad
ended up hospitalized for more than a year---------not fun but she did it

I edited my post, after you quoted it, the amounts have gone up according to the USDA website. I don't children to starve, but the numbers are kind of high. We eat chicken, steak, hamburger, fish at our place. Eggs for breakfast, nice lunches we are around the $400 a month for four people.

I'm not sure how this $133 for a family came in.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

of all the social welfare programs------I consider SNAP to be
the most justifiable------we should all be happy that our country
provides food for ALL

Define "food"...
Because what's permitted under SNAP and other food( notice the term "nutrition" is absent) stipends, the crap the recipients are allowed to buy is a disgrace.

Oh let me guess the famous "lobsters argument" right? They can buy lobsters? That's what you don't like? Christ dude, try to think realistically will you? The average person on SNAP gets about $133 per month and makes no more than $744 per MONTH. If they did buy lobsters, they would only be screwing themselves by going hungry.

Who said anything about lobster?
Look, you're playing stupid to further a political point....
You know darned well what is basic nutritious foods which are far less expensive than convenience and junk food.
But to your side it is not politically correct to demand these people's food choices are limited to foods that can be easily made into nutritious meals.

What are you talking about?

Junk food is much cheaper than "basic nutritious foods". How many nutritious, complete meals for the whole family do you think $130 bucks a month can buy?

It's as if you live in an alternate reality.

I went to several government and other websites, the $133 is the average per person not per family and that is incorrect according to this site.

How Much Could I Receive Food and Nutrition Service

$ 649 is more than my family of four spends on food.

First of all, I have some issues with your calculation, only two people live in my household, and I spend at least that much on food, if not more.

More importantly, $649 is the maximum possible allowance, only applicable to a household with zero income. Food stamps are calculated based on income - you get the maximum allotment, as shown in your link minus 1/3 of your gross income for a month.

A family of four supported by a single full-time minimum wage earner would receive $230 a month in assistance from SNAP.

 

[Moonglow]

I am on disability and get 956 a month. I have to feed two people and pay bills..I usually eek by with 225 in food costs, I eat once a day and am not elidgable for any assistance....
It could be worse....

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I am on disability and get 956 a month. I have to feed two people and pay bills..I usually eek by with 225 in food costs, I eat once a day and am not elidgable for any assistance....
It could be worse....

There's no question that where I live has a significant inflationary impact on my food costs.

But the cheapest I think I've ever been able to live, in terms of food cost, was $250 a month, by myself.

 

[Moonglow]

I am on disability and get 956 a month. I have to feed two people and pay bills..I usually eek by with 225 in food costs, I eat once a day and am not elidgable for any assistance....
It could be worse....

There's no question that where I live has a significant inflationary impact on my food costs.

But the cheapest I think I've ever been able to live, in terms of food cost, was $250 a month, by myself.

I raise my own veggies and can to help out...I take supplements to cover anemia...