This and all assistance programs were instituted for those in NEED, not for the greedy. Refining requirements to assure that funding goes to those in real need allows these programs to function as designed. These programs were put in place to be TEMPORARY assistance - not a LIFELONG RIGHT.
I don't buy into the argument that the system is full of moochers. I also don't buy into the argument that anyone---even noble Republicans--is qualified to say whether a given person "deserves" public aid.
It comes down to one of two choices: impose strict standards, and some truly needy people get left out, or impose less strict standards, and some of the "undeserving" get benefits. I prefer the latter situation to the former.
Why? It's more harmful to society when a person starves than when that person gets free food. Also, food stamp (SNAP) money goes back directly into the economy--it's spent almost immediately. In impoverished areas in particular, businesses that sell groceries derive 10% or more of their revenue from SNAP customers.
Trump's cuts target exactly those most impoverished areas. Several states allowed extensions of benefits in areas (counties, usually) with high unemployment. So the cuts will both starve people in those areas and cripple local businesses.
Of course, Trump is capering and tweeting because many of the people affected will be in California, his designated enemy state. That's because CA was the most generous with SNAP extensions. Other states such as Louisiana and Kentucky have the extensions as well.
This isn't motivated by fiscal considerations--the money saved is small beer compared to Trump's astronomical deficits. Rather, it's an attempt to feed the standard conservative narrative that everyone on public benefits is a lazy, undeserving bum.
I for one don't feel qualified to determine who lives or dies. Therefore, I say, make sure no one dies--even if they ARE incompetent or lazy or Democrats (the last is the true Trump exclusion criterion). But most of you, apparently, feel differently. Let 'em die, you say.
That's sad.
Der Fuhrer's "bleeding heart" mea culpa is what is "sad".
Kevin’s initial post was about evil Republicans. Once the true story come out,he changes his story.
Kevin has a problem with reality and the truth.
The only reality I see is a lot of sick bastards, like Trump, cheering on the starvation of kids.
Mark says-"The only reality I see is a lot of sick bastards, like Trump, cheering on the starvation of kids" -- I have a question for Mark- just how many kids are between the ages of 18-49?
Originally posted by: David Miller
Mark says-"The only reality I see is a lot of sick bastards, like Trump, cheering on the starvation of kids" -- I have a question for Mark- just how many kids are between the ages of 18-49?
I didn't see that. Thank you for pointing it out. However, what you don't get is how Food Stamps works. For example, someone that gets sick or injured and deservedly should be on SSDI typically has to wait 2-3 years to get it. So, how would this work for them given the government would still see them as able-bodied? Are they not supposed to eat during that time?
Furthermore, you have people on Medicaid because they are dealing with catastrophic health care expenses. Making them work would put them over the income limit for Medicaid. While some of them can still physically work if they get treatment for their condition, they can't afford the treatment unless they are on Medicaid. Under these new rules, they would have to quit taking the treatments so they could qualify for Medicaid.
Then you have people that are homeless. They only have the clothing on their back and what little they can carry with them, they aren't going to get a job anywhere because their clothing is dirty and they smell bad. If you listen to what Tangerine says, he is always harping about homelessness in California. He is always trying to punish California. This is an additional cruel way for him to punish California as now the homeless people there will have to go without food.
So what you are saying that because there are a small percentage of people who are deserving that ALL of the rest who are undeserving should get to abuse the system, is that correct? How would YOU deal with this if YOU were in charge? Is there a workable solution that would make everyone happy? If so, tell us what it is.
They are being asked to work 20 hours for a 4 week period each year.
This is not a strenuous requirement.
Out of the 8,700 hours in a year, they are being asked to work less than 1% of the time.
