Trump wants to impose work requirement for food stamp users

That would not disqualify them from jobs in the Trump Administration.

 

No where do I say "black". Compton & Watts are majority hispanic communities, and ones in which public housing communities are concentrated. Slavery doesn't have minimum wage provisions, and if anyone believes such work is beneath them, the perhaps public assistance is as well.

 

You want to know the scariest part of the whole thing? These creatures are allowed to VOTE, exactly like people who earn their own income, and pay taxes for the support of the country -- including welfare for the same parasite zombies you're talking about.

It should become air-tight law that in any calendar year that a citizen takes UNEARNED handouts from the government, that person does not (NOT) get to vote in that same year! Hint: The Democrat Party would cease to exist within that same calendar year....

. "WORK?! What the hell for...?!"

 

While on the other hand, they celebrate and promote the butchery of 1,000,000 unborn children a year at Planned Parenthood and other butcher shops. Six times as many black babies are killed as white babies, relative to populations. This vile racism was the brainchild of Margaret Sanger, whom Hillary Clinton "greatly admires."

 

Lol, you did know that republicans are a SIZABLE portion of welfare and SNAP benefits didn't you?

 

I think a better system would limit SNAP to the cheaper basic necessities. No soda, cheetos or fillet minione.

I think a 'work requirement' may lead to more folks turning to crime to feed themselves. A 'work encentive' program would be preferable.

But arent we kindof trying to fix the small leaks in the system here while ignoring the huge ones?

Bank bailouts, foreign aid to oppressive dictatorships... theres a lot of ways we could save a lot more money than SNAP fraud. It is a problem, but maybe we could focus on it *after* we fix some of the larger problems.

 

cut them off too

 

forced ? I see what you did there. .........fail

 

Food stamps help millions of Americans feed themselves and their families, but they also help major companies boost their bottom lines.

Kraft’s incoming CEO Tony Vernon said as much when he told the Financial Times on Sunday that he opposes cuts to the food stamp program or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP for short). Vernon said food stamp buys make up one-sixth of Kraft’s revenue and a bigger share of the company’s total sales.

But Kraft isn’t the only company that’s a fan of food stamps, Walmart, Coca-Cola and other big brands have lobbied surrounding the issue, according to a June 2012 report from advocacy group Eat Drink Politics called “Food Stamps: Follow the Money.”

And there’s lots of money to be made off food stamps, with use of the benefits at an all-time high thanks to the weak economy, according to the Department of Agriculture. Food stamp use has surged 51 percent since October 2008.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/companies-benefit-from-food-stamps_n_1878457.html

Funny how right-wing socialists only complain when the little guy gets governmental assistance, yet they support the corporate welfare state.
Governmental created entities known as corporate pay low wages and then their employees qualify for governmental assistance as a way to
have taxpayers socialize their business costs. What a scam.

 

Why? That's just as dumb as wanting to cut democrats off.

 

Then arrest them. They can get their government food in jail. The left likes to throw out arguments in this same vein - this idea that we are almost being held hostage by welfare recipients, because if we dare reduce their benefits they're going to come after us, increased crime, etc. Fine then - at the same time as we begin to reform welfare, maybe we can increase police. If someone thinks they didn't get enough free s*** from welfare and wants to start stealing, let them end up in jail.

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Excluding public assistance recipients from the polls is an interesting proposition, but it is troublesome.

I think votes should be weighted based on the voter's responsibility; a voter who owns his home has more interest and concern in the community where he lives than someone who is temporarily there and can easily move away from his rented apartment. A married man has more at stake in his neighborhood than someone single, just as a parent does over one without children. An employer with a profitable business has more interest in the well-being of his community than any temporary part-timer working for him. Taxpayers are more valuable in any community than people receiving public benefits, the contributor's concerns should be given greater consideration.

 

While I can see a 'no vote for wards of the state' being much easier and more reasonable line to draw than trying to come up with a 'vote credit' system based on how connected one is with the community... ultimately i think the slope is just too slippery for either.

We should be focussing on incentive vs decentive programs that still allow folks to be a drain on the system when there is no alternative, but make it just unpleasant enough that they would prefer to be more self sufficient.

 

I'm on SSI, SNAP and Medicaid and am legally determined to be disabled and unfit to work - twice - once when I got my original determination and once after a one year review. My next review is in three years. But if your able bodied and not working, and have no small children to care for, then you should work. My view of the small children child care would cost a lot to provide so why not keep the mother and child or children at home, until they can go to kindergarten. But the mother should be on implanted birth control and any adults in the household should be expected to work. If they are working and need help ,this includes the service members on benefits we need to be ashamed of that they need more pay, then fine. If the government determines your disabled either the VA or Social Security then we need help and leave us be.

 

Meh, I knew someone qualified because they couldn't get out of bed to get to work. A woman, a nurse, in the same rental complex who really qualified with a bonafide ailment was incensed about it. The system is gamed with many government workers accomplishes.

 

So

So your idea is to strip the poor and disabled and even retirees and former soldiers on disability of their one power they have to defend themselves other than other means such as force other than voting.

 

They'll adjust. People are resilient. They dont need government. Government needs them

 

Hi, Rahl, long time no see!

Hey, I'm not partisan -- a parasite is a parasite is a parasite, no matter what race, what sex, or what political orientation they subscribe to.

People who collect welfare of any kind ("food stamps", Medicaid, SNAP, and others, including, Obamacare "subsidy" handouts) in a calendar year should not (NOT) be allowed to vote any time in that same calendar year! This should apply to everybody, from people like you, to people like me....

. "Politics aside, if you are ABLE to work, but WILL not, you're a damned BUM -- period!"

 

Uhh... RE-impose. Work requirements for food-stamps were first imposed by Bill Clinton in 1996. And oddly enough, this was not greeted with "progressive" brick-******** when Clinton did it.

The Best Budget Since Reagan

Obamanomics is being reversed.

We have a federal budget proposal that would make the Gipper proud. This is the best budget since Reagan undoubtedly.

This is a fiscal plan that stresses the need for economic growth and advocates the tax and regulatory policies that would get us there.

It stresses federalism and allowing the states to play their constitutional role as laboratories of democracy. Let the states do it. The feds have struck out. Call it the new, New Federalism.

It puts government on a real diet. And it calls out liberal big government failures. Everything from broken education programs, to the National Endowment for the Arts, has been put on the chopping block.

Best of all is the call to overhaul the corrupt and corrupting welfare state — a $1 trillion a year system that pays people not to work.

How can we go forward with 42 million people on food stamps and 70 million on Medicaid? Can it be true that one in eight families needs the government and taxpayers to put food on the table?

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said it so well: “If you are on food stamps and are able-bodied, we need you to work.”

Even better was his statement that “we will measure success based on how many people we take off of welfare, not how many sign up.” Obama measured economic success the opposite way: he spent hundreds of millions of tax dollars to encourage people to get food stamps and unemployment benefits.

There is dignity and self-worth in work and earning a paycheck, not being sent a welfare check. There are now many hundreds of communities where as many as half the citizens are on some form of government assistance. This is wrong and creates a culture of dependency that is difficult to break.

The White House’s big gamble here is that the Trump tax cuts will generate 3 to 4 percent growth. With 3 percent growth, over the next 20 years the debt as a share of GDP falls to about 50 percent of GDP. Conversely, as the Trump plan demonstrates, the 1.8 growth path Obama left Trump will cause a debt crisis over the next decade or two. With 3 to 4 percent growth millions of new jobs will be created and the need for welfare will start to disappear. The best way to help the poor is with a good paying job.

So why is this cruel?

‎This budget, in sum, reverses Obamanomics. Well done. Obama’s gave us the worst debt record ($9 trillion added in eight years) of any president by a country mile. The economy barely recovered from recession. Americans voted for a change in direction and this budget lays it all out.

Somewhere Reagan is smiling.

https://spectator.org/the-best-budget-since-reagan/

 

The biggest welfare queens are plutocratic socialists like Commie Donnie.

 

Cut both

 

A book came out on this years ago - "Free Lunch". The rich and the poor turn out to be the same self-entitled people - two cousins with the same Uncle. But one does not excuse the other, and we all should be united against all the pork and favors coming from the swamp creatures as we are against the free-loaders on the low end.
P.S. - there is food in abundance in this country. If a child is hungry, it's because his parent is passed out on the sofa.

 

Not at all, my idea, which I admit is problematic, is to have a weighted voting where individual voters would have their vote multiplied depending on objective measures of responsibility. I think an employed, married man with two kids, paying a mortgage sensibly is more responsible than some homeless drug addicted bum who just got off the bus. Their votes are worth the same now, I don't think this is right.

I'd weigh votes to credit for military service, I think this is a sign of responsibility (extra points if he volunteered).

 

We do not have 40% unemployed. This is apparently a reference to the Labor Force Participation Rate.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

This includes those still in school, retirees, and many others such as "stay-at-home" wives that are caring for young children.

For 2017 the average has been 63% which is up slightly from when I checked last year and it was at 62% The highest it's ever been in the US was January 2000 when it topped out at 67.3% while the record low was 58.1% in December of 1954. The percentage was relatively constant through the 1950's and 1960's when it was typically below 60%. This was during the growth of the American middle class and the iconic household like the TV shows "Ozzie and Harriet" and :"Leave it to Beaver" where Ozzie Nelson and Ward Cleaver went to work 5-days a week while Harriet and June didn't work but instead took care of Dave and Ricky Nelson and Wally and the "Beaver" Cleaver respectively. .

In those days a man could support his family with a typical job (that would include working the soda counter at Schwab's drug store (an iconic Hollywood hangout for movie stars).

The labor participation rate went up as Republican economic policies began to take hold in the 1970's and wages began to decline relative to productivity. Republican economics forced the wives to go to work just to support the family and that drove up the Labor Force Participation Rate. Basically the higher the percentage the less well off the American workers are doing because it's forcing two-income households for couples living together. .