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.
Agree. It's unbelievable how enraged liberals get by the suggestion that able-bodied adults without children, and in areas of low employment, actually get a part-time job (at a minimum) to keep the taxpayer gravy train coming. I remember years ago when they had four "welfare" recipients on Oprah (or some talk show....I think it was Oprah), all in their 30s and 40s, none with children, and all receiving some form of welfare. When Oprah asked why they didn't take a job, each one said the same thing: why should they have to get out of bed early in the morning, take a bus to a boring job, work all day, and then take the bus back when they get as much, or almost as much, just doing nothing.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a physically and mentally competent adult, without children and living in an area with 4% unemployment or less, not to have a job. There are help-wanted signs every place I look!
I have never heard of anyone being able to do this. Childless adults have never been eligible for much welfare unless they are disabled. Maybe some states are different. But they generally get kicked to the curb or only eligible for a very limited amount for a short time. Compared to single mothers who get everything.
Mine and smelt their own steel in their tenement apartment patio? I dont know anybody living in mud hut and beating their animal skin they wear instead of bought clothes on rock in the river.....
But please point out the many you see living this way.
Umm, the fact that Walmart employees qualify for food stamps and other personal welfare is in itself a tax subsidy to Walmart.
I have never heard of anyone being able to do this. Childless adults have never been eligible for much welfare unless they are disabled. Maybe some states are different. But they generally get kicked to the curb or only eligible for a very limited amount for a short time. Compared to single mothers who get everything.
And if those single mothers marry someone who doesn't make much, they'll still loose their welfare. So why do it? Another incentive to not have 2 parents.
I believe the estimate is 1 million will loose food stamps. roughly 37 million are on it so just over 2%
In 2007 the number was 27 million. The population grew 9% since then so why is usage 33% higher now 12 years later?
roughly 37 million are on it so just over 2%
In 2007 the number was 27 million. The population grew 9% since then so why is usage 33% higher now 12 years later?
I have never heard of anyone being able to do this. Childless adults have never been eligible for much welfare unless they are disabled. Maybe some states are different. But they generally get kicked to the curb or only eligible for a very limited amount for a short time. Compared to single mothers who get everything.
they don't get anything except SNAP for 3 months every 3 years and healthcare if they live in a state with expanded medicaid, those are federal rules and I don't know of any state that hands out cash to adults without children.
And if those single mothers marry someone who doesn't make much, they'll still loose their welfare. So why do it? Another incentive to not have 2 parents.
A married couple with children can receive TANF if their income is low enough.[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
I believe the estimate is 1 million will loose food stamps. roughly 37 million are on it so just over 2% In 2007 the number was 27 million. The population grew 9% since then so why is usage 33% higher now 12 years later?
You are using 2007 as a base year which was pre-recession year. SNAP beneficiaries peaked in 2013 and have fallen by 16.6% post recession. You should also factor in the 35 million increase in the population since 2005.
Exactly. All the plan says is that able-bodied adults, without children, in their "working years," and who live in areas with low unemployment take a job, even part-time, in order to keep accepting taxpayer support. And liberals have a problem with this??
Requiring someone to "take a job" when employers are refusing to offer the person a job to take? How is that not punishing someone for something beyond the person's control?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
You gotta love the empathy of conservatives For the most part we aren't talking about people who 'refuse to work for a living'. No one would refuse to work for $150 in SNAP benefits. For the most part the people affected are the homeless, the poor living in rural areas without transportation to work and people who are disabled but not to the extent that they are eligible for SSI or SSDI.
Punishing people for something that is beyond their control is the Christian way. A lot of people are unemployable for reasons they can never help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel976
Agree. It's unbelievable how enraged liberals get by the suggestion that able-bodied adults without children, and in areas of low employment, actually get a part-time job (at a minimum) to keep the taxpayer gravy train coming. I remember years ago when they had four "welfare" recipients on Oprah (or some talk show....I think it was Oprah), all in their 30s and 40s, none with children, and all receiving some form of welfare. When Oprah asked why they didn't take a job, each one said the same thing: why should they have to get out of bed early in the morning, take a bus to a boring job, work all day, and then take the bus back when they get as much, or almost as much, just doing nothing.
There is absolutely NO EXCUSE for a physically and mentally competent adult, without children and living in an area with 4% unemployment or less, not to have a job. There are help-wanted signs every place I look!
Again, if a person fills out job applications everywhere and receives no job offers then how is that person's fault? The person did all he/she could to be legitimately employed. An applicant cannot override the hiring manager's decision and "take" or "get" a job that isn't offered. Applying for a job at a place that has a "help-wanted" sign doesn't improve your chances that the manager will decide you are the right "fit" over the hundreds of other applicants when managers for years already decided you did not "fit" into the company in years prior.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sware2cod
The work rules only apply to ages 18-49.
People age 50 and over aren't impacted.
The paper I got in the mail from the food stamp office said ages 18 to 60.
they don't get anything except SNAP for 3 months every 3 years and healthcare if they live in a state with expanded medicaid, those are federal rules and I don't know of any state that hands out cash to adults without children.
States have choices regarding food stamps. Texas re-instated the 3 months thing but not all states do that. I think that is rather severe. If one is thinking about a person who is trying their best, it can take more than 3 months to find a job. Or they could lose a job but be inside the three years so they can't get them again.
States have choices regarding food stamps. Texas re-instated the 3 months thing but not all states do that. I think that is rather severe. If one is thinking about a person who is trying their best, it can take more than 3 months to find a job. Or they could lose a job but be inside the three years so they can't get them again.
There are also a lot of people who the very powers that be that want them to work, set them up to not be hirable due to records for low level drug possession and personal use. You can’t even get hired with a DUI on your record anymore. This is millions and millions of people that they have set up to live in the no man’s land of needing a job yet being blackballed from every job there is. We have a friend whose young daughter (20) was 3 years into an early childhood degree. She recently got caught and arrested with a joint. Her entire career is now over before it started. There isn’t even a point to her finishing her degree. To me that is ridiculous and IMO the wasteful end hypocritical war on drugs is a big part of the problem. In some communities, there are probably 40-50% young males that cannot get hired.
I read about a guy who was arrested for downloading a three minute porn video with teen girl. He lost everything because he has to register as a sex offender forever. He has not been able to get a job in decades and lives in a motel on welfare. Should he have done it? No of course not. But he has a life sentence essentially. We need to realize that there are literally millions of people in the situation that will not get hired due to basically getting a life sentence for a low level crime.
There are also a lot of people who the very powers that be that want them to work, set them up to not be hirable due to low level drug possession and personal use. You can’t even get hired with a DUI on your record anymore. This is millions and millions of people that they have set up to live in the no man’s land of needing a job yet being blackballed from every job there is.
I read about a guy who was arrested for downloading a three minute porn video with teen girl. He lost everything because he has to register as a sex offender forever. He has not been able to get a job in decades and lives in a motel on welfare. Should he have done it? No of course not. But he has a life sentence essentially. We need to realize that there are literally millions of people in the situation that will not get hired due to basically getting a life sentence for a low level crime.
I don't agree about low level crimes. I know someone with 2 felonies and multiple misdemeanors who has a warehouse job. It isn't glamorous, but he got a raise to 17/hour which is not bad where I live in a low COL area. He's black, and the only reason I mention that is it's supposedly impossible for a black man who has anything on his record to get a job. And yet, ta-da!
I agree with you about some sex offenders. Especially the romeo and juliet types that got snared before nearly every state created romeo and juliet loopholes. Also I agree with some of the 'child porn' stuff. I read that sometimes people don't even INTEND to see it, it just pops up while they are surfing or however you look for what you want to watch.
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.
