Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"But as we know, states do not vote, individuals do. There is only a paradox if Republican voters receive welfare at above average rates while voting against it. From the Gelman-paradox we know that the low-income voters who drag down the Red States average tend to vote disproportionally for Democrats."
Quote:
If Republicans succeed in their multi-front campaign to cut back on food stamps, the burden will fall heaviest on the working-class, rural white voters on whom President Trump has staked the future of their party.
House Republicans on Thursday passed legislation that would require Americans ages 18 through 59 to either work part time or spend 20 hours a week in workforce training to receive food stamps.
If they have a part time job that would make them less poor, correct? And workforce training gives them at least the opportunity to learn a skill that might improve their job prospects.
How is that a bad thing?
The democrats idea is just give them handouts and they won't need it in the future?
Of these, about one-in-five (22%) of Democrats say they had received food stamps compared with 10% of Republicans. About 17% of political independents say they have received food stamps.
Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to have used this benefit during their lives (31% vs. 15%). Among Hispanics, about 22% say they have collected food stamps.
Your demographics on who gets food stamps is totally wrong.
I know plenty of these trailer trash lower middle class types who are Trump supporters. But these people were also W. supporters and are supporters of far right candidates.
Trump and the Republicans could take their social security, Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits, children health insurance away and they would still vote red over blue.
I mean their children could die for lack of health insurance and they would still not vote democratic. That sadly is not hyperbole.
Whether there is something in the American psyche that they do not want to admit they need help or they think they will rewarded in the afterlife for being anti-government or maybe it is just a sado-masochistic streak or maybe they are simply fatalists. Who knows.
That is why Trump will get their vote no matter what. Democrats need to look elsewhere. There is nothing there.
This is rather OT, but I really wish people would stop using the term "trailer trash."
A trailer is a form of housing, nothing more and nothing less, and to label people this way, particularly with housing costs so high in so many locales, seems unkind to me, not to mention elitist.
Lets get one thing straight about this popular publican position. Private companies that receive tax payer money are not private. Private interests are greedy. A private transaction is greed vs greed, not public money and private greed. Prisons as a necessary evil ,should never ever be so called private. That is because the only thing that makes something private is when the private consumer is the buyer. Don't think we want prisoners checking themselves in.
That's a very strange idea and I'm not quite sure what you mean but if I am reading this correctly, you think that a private prison becomes a public entity because the government pays them, well that is as nuts as saying that a physician who accepts medicare or medicaid patients suddenly becomes a public employee, or that if a City hires a private firm to pave a street, that company is no longer private and is somehow a public entity?
If they have a part time job that would make them less poor, correct? And workforce training gives them at least the opportunity to learn a skill that might improve their job prospects. How is that a bad thing?
It's a totally stupid idea, the law already limits SNAP benefits to 3 months every three years and imposes work requirements for ABAWD (able bodied adults without dependents) So who is left that this will impact?
Elderly
Disabled
Children
Non disabled adults with children 3/4 of whom work or have worked within a year.
So we are talking about 1/4 of 22% of total SNAP recipients or, 5.5% being subject to this. That is the percent of adults with children who currently receive SNAP and aren't working. Fine, then make them work but is the Government going to pay for childcare because if you are poor enough to receive SNAP you probably can't afford to pay for childcare. This is absolute nonsense, it's just red meat for those people who salivate whenever they see a way to cut aid to the poor.
Those with children will not lose their snap benefits. But there is government assistance for child care.
The majority of beneficiaries are minors, disabled and elderly.
There has been a work/ train requirement for more than 20 years for able- bodied adults who intend to receive a benefit for more than 3 months every 3 years.
Most states applied for and received waivers to the work/ train requirement in the years leading up to and after the Great Recession.
The proposal includes increasing the age cap of the work/ train requirement to age 62.
The majority of beneficiaries are minors, disabled and elderly.
There has been a work/ train requirement for more than 20 years for able- bodied adults who intend to receive a benefit for more than 3 months every 3 years.
Most states applied for and received waivers to the work/ train requirement in the years leading up to and after the Great Recession.
The proposal includes increasing the age cap of the work/ train requirement to age 62.
What has any of that got to do with the fact those with young children wont lose benefits or be required to work under this bill or that there is government assisted daycare?
It's a totally stupid idea, the law already limits SNAP benefits to 3 months every three years and imposes work requirements for ABAWD (able bodied adults without dependents) So who is left that this will impact?
Elderly
Disabled
Children
Non disabled adults with children 3/4 of whom work or have worked within a year.
So we are talking about 1/4 of 22% of total SNAP recipients or, 5.5% being subject to this. That is the percent of adults with children who currently receive SNAP and aren't working. Fine, then make them work but is the Government going to pay for childcare because if you are poor enough to receive SNAP you probably can't afford to pay for childcare. This is absolute nonsense, it's just red meat for those people who salivate whenever they see a way to cut aid to the poor.
the law limits SNAP benefits to 3 months every three years if they are not working or in a training program.
This is for adults 18-50. Are you saying 50 is elderly? Doesn't apply to the disabled or children or those working.
Sound like the only thing changed is perhaps removal of the 3 months of eligibility.
Did you read the bill? It affects all adults 18-59 and the only exemption from the work requirement is a beneficiary caring for an incapacitated family member. There is no funding for childcare, there is no provision for exempting people who currently work but work less than 20 hours a week, pregnant women, parents with young children, disabled persons, or people who are currently receiving SSI or SSDI. Here's the text from the bill:
Quote:
Subsection (a) of section 4015 amends section 6(d) of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to require individuals age 18 to 59 to work, participate in employment and training or a work program, or any combination of work, participation in employment and training or a work program a minimum of 20 hours per week in fiscal years 2021 through 2025 and 25 hours per week in fiscal year 2026 and each fiscal year thereafter. The subsection also establishes a two year transition period for State implementation and enforcement of the updated work requirement; establishes a revised ineligibility process allowing one month for initial compliance, requiring a 12-month ineligibility period for the first violation of the work requirement, and a 36-month ineligibility period for subsequent violations unless an individual obtains employment sufficient to meet the hourly requirement or is no longer subject to the work requirements at an earlier time; modifies the criteria that States may use to request a geographic waiver of the work requirements; updates the “15-percent” exemption criteria and process; strikes provisions related to the selection of a head of household; requires States to offer minimum services in employment and training (including offering case management services) so that every covered individual may meet the work requirements, and updates components of employment and training programs.
Well gringo, you seem to agree with them publicans. For some cockroach picken reason you think da guberment should be trusted with running schools. Never give a choice to the consumer eh?
But I don't care much for those publicans either , cause they are just like you. They think that they need to be drug nannies. Catch a doped up druggie driving a truck and now it has my attention. But they don't want to let people make their own choice or suffer their own consequences. And private prisons?
Lets get one thing straight about this popular publican position. Private companies that receive tax payer money are not private. Private interests are greedy. A private transaction is greed vs greed, not public money and private greed. Prisons as a necessary evil ,should never ever be so called private. That is because the only thing that makes something private is when the private consumer is the buyer. Don't think we want prisoners checking themselves in.
The only problem I have with SS is that it compulsory. One should be able to opt out. However I sure do not want to see that invested in Wall Street. As far as SNAP , well , something needs to sub for the lack of access to arable land.
You da guberment types all look the same to me. You just like your favorite flavors on that icy cold, institutional swill.
Bush Admin pitched a privatized SS option.
Payroll taxes would have remained compulsory and the Federal Government would give participants the choice to invest in designated mutual funds.
It went nowhere fast in Congress.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
