688,000 people to be thrown off food stamps

Is this what you are talking about?

Federal SNAP spending related to the final rule stands to be reduced about $109 million in fiscal year 2020 and $5.48 billion over the five years from 2020 to 2024, the USDA reported. 

If so, that isn't saying there is $5.48 billion of fraud in the system to be removed. That is just saying we are changing the rules so people that are legitimately eligible now won't be legitimately eligible afterward and that will save us $5.48 billion over five years. Again most of these folks are homeless, legitimately disabled, have medical problems or have other serious problems that prevent them from working 20 hours a week. Otherwise, they wouldn't have qualified for the work wavier in the first place.  It is just punishment plain and simple.

 And the good news from your article is: “FMI has heard that several groups are considering suing the agency [USDA] in opposition to the rule. If suits are filed, it is likely plaintiffs will seek injunctions preventing the implementation of the rule pending the ongoing litigation.”

Thanks to Mark and Kevin for such kind words.  I must correct Mark, though.  As far as I know I haven't wet a bed since babyhood.

Sorry for your troubles with those programs, Mark.  The situation I described had no relation to SS, SSDI, Medicare or Medicaid.  Those are headaches waiting to happen.  Every polititian thinks they have a solution for simplifying a program, the result ending up a more complex, more unsatisfying, more totally screwed mess up than before. 

And, BTW, you have no idea of my political ideation, because I haven't discussed it.  You have no knowledge of what I think about Trump, because I haven't discussed that either.  And will never.  Every poster's posts, nasty or nice, adds something to my perspective of the world, positive or negative and I do learn from them.  I am usually misunderstood when I jump in, so apparently I don't explain myself well, a good reason to not try.  But thanks again.

Contrary to what Mark and Der Fuhrer have posted - "The new rule doesn’t apply to children and their parents, those older than 50 (including the elderly), people with a disability and pregnant women."-- In actuality, this change in the progran is aimed at the freeloaders and those too lazy to get a job. 

It does relate to all of those programs because any change to one impacts the others and all of the programs that a state administers are handled by the same office. For example, in my state, if you qualified for Medicaid, Food Stamps, Children's Health insurance or any state-administered program you would be required to fill out the same forms. So, someone in my state, such as my wife, would be required to produce whatever additional documentation Food Stamps requires to get Medicaid even though she doesn't want or need food stamps. They would consider her Medicaid application incomplete and disqualify her unless she produces that documentation to "make sure" sure she isn't eligible for Food Stamps. I have complained and asked several times and always get the same canned answer that they have to "make sure" she doesn't qualify for these other programs to be eligible for anyone of them.  

In addition, if you are applying for SSDI the food stamps are helpful as you don't have any income while waiting for SS to determine if you are able-bodied or not. Under these new Food Stamps rules, you would be forced to work 20 hours a week if you wanted Food Stamps but doing so would make you ineligible for SSDI. Likewise, working 20 hours a week as Trump wants food stamps to require would make you ineligible for Medicaid in most states as the various income thresholds are that low. One would literally be forced to choose between food or medicine. 

Can a reasonable person not infer your political affiliation by your stated opinions on various political issues? 

And I thanked you for providing that information as I didn't see it on my first pass.  No, if you read the article you linked to, it is a change in the waiver system. All of the people you refer to as freeloaders have already received waivers from their state government exempting them from work requirements because they are disabled, homeless or in some other dire circumstance that prevents them from working 20 hours a week.  To use your language, their state determined that they weren't freeloaders.  

Donnie Dictator is saying I don't want the states to control the waiver process. I want the big federal government to come in and dictate the process to the states and not give waivers to people that don't have dependent children and are under 50 regardless if they are legitimately unable to work. 

And Kevin is right in that this is a scheme to punish California as they have a large homeless population that currently qualifies for waivers. It is awfully hard to get a job without an address, phone number, clean clothing and regular showers. I wouldn't worry too much David. If this survives court challenge, the state of California will just have to add the cost of feeding these folks to state taxpayer's bills which is something I am sure you can get on board with. 

California's problems are self inflicted. They have and continue to elect people who do not have the tax paying citizen's of California interests at heart. Their homeless problem is theirs to deal with and it does not appear to be a high priority with the elected officials. Meanwhile the majority of the states that constitute the United States do not seem to have California's problems. It does seem strange that such a prosperous and progressive state should have such a problem. Does make one wonder...

What I wonder is why California supports so many red moocher states? If they get rid of those red-state moochers, they could use that money to take care of state problems.

Red moocher states? Now I have heard everything.

You are so right.  See the QOD today.  It is on the growing homeless problem in Las Vegas. 

It's a standard conservative meme to criticize California, because Trump has declared it his enemy state.

The reason California has a homeless problem is simple, and is the same reason for the homeless problem in Vegas. The weather makes it possible to sleep outside for most of the year. There's a reason why, say, Minnesota doesn't have a large population of homeless.

But of course, you can be an idiot Trumper and say that California's homeless problem is due to all those liberal snowflakes there who refuse to swear absolute loyalty to the bigliest bestest President EVER.

Also, in general, liberal/progressive states will have larger homeless populations because those states provide more services for them. In conservative states, the citizenry and government want to nail them into crates and ship them to Iceland. Or just plain kill them.