Food Stamps Put Poor Kids on Path to Success

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 07:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: People in there 50's may not be physically able to take manual labor jobs, or they may not be able to walk long distances for a job.   There is no mass transit outside of cities and there are not a lot of jobs either.


Plus many of the same people who yell "Get a job" will also refuse to hire a homeless person who does not have clean clothes or the ability to bathe every day.

But I guess it is okay to let these people starve so that we don't "weaken" our military.  I mean we only spend more than the next 7 largest countries (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, India, France, United Kingdom, France) COMBINED.  

Why does everyone keep bringing up the military? Just more partisan bullshit because nobody is able to discuss anything. I’m not talking about saving money. Having people work part time while still supplementing them doesn’t save money. But it can help move them toward being able to support themselves.

As for your fifty year old, it said healthy. If they can’t work they can’t work.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-06-2018, 02:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: The politics of it is, as you said, SNAP is a drop in the bucket but always ran out by the GOP has a place that needs constant reform to save us money.

Meanwhile the military....

Well, ignore that spending.

Any social service gets maligned as riddled with fraud and costing too much by our friends on the right.

So you're saying there is no such thing as fraud for these types of programs?

Is it my fault that someone comes here and can't speak English, and now they are classified as having a Disability and they get money for that??

That's a BS one right off the bat. If you're going to come here you need to learn to speak the language, just about every city has ESL classes for free and if not for free, then that's what that money should be used for.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2018, 08:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why does everyone keep bringing up the military? 

Because Republicans are increasing military spending at the same time they are trying to cut food stamps.

Pretty logical connection, don't you think?  If they were cutting cost across the board then I could see their argument, but they don't really care about controlling spending at all.  Instead they want military contractors to get richer while poor people have less food.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2018, 08:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you're saying there is no such thing as fraud for these types of programs?

You mean like poor people using food stamps to buy $640 toilet seats, $435 for a regular hammer, or $37 for a standard nut?

Oh wait, that was the Pentagon. 

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 08:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because Republicans are increasing military spending at the same time they are trying to cut food stamps.

Pretty logical connection, don't you think?  If they were cutting cost across the board then I could see their argument, but they don't really care about controlling spending at all.  Instead they want military contractors to get richer while poor people have less food.

No because according to Dino’s link it could end up losing one million people over ten years. Based on the average that’s about $1.5 billion a year. once 1 million are off. Hardly the amount to ramp up military spending.

[fredtoast]

(12-06-2018, 08:19 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No because according to Dino’s link it could end up losing one million people over ten years. Based on the average that’s about $1.5 billion a year. once 1 million are off.  Hardly the amount to ramp up military spending.

Sorry, but I do not understand this.

Are you claiming they are not increasing military spending at the same time they are cutting food stamp benefits?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-06-2018, 08:18 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean like poor people using food stamps to buy $640 toilet seats, $435 for a regular hammer, or $37 for a standard nut?

Oh wait, that was the Pentagon. 

I believe the OP was talking about SNAP, nothing to do with Military, if you want to talk about the military over spending, you won't find much of an argument from me. In fact, I believe that everyone should spend 2 years in the military, graduate HS, 2 years military and get a standard amount of your college paid for after you served your time (example if you want to go to Yale, then you pay the difference between an average tuition from a state College).

But that all deserves its own thread.

Back to OP, there is fraud in the system as well, some people get on and never get off, work cash jobs don't report that income etc. There's always a way around it and people will find it. I don't beleive in cutting it just to cut it, but for those that can work, they need to be supplementing their income as well. Its not intended to be a free ride.

[*michaelsean*]

(12-06-2018, 08:22 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Sorry, but I do not understand this.

Are you claiming they are not increasing military spending at the same time they are cutting food stamp benefits?

They aren’t cutting benefits but the proposal they had which was scrapped would have changed work requirements. According to the link this could have meant one million less people over ten years. Unless I misunderstood you, you were saying this was to help offset increased military spending. I’m saying it wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2018, 08:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why does everyone keep bringing up the military?  Just more partisan bullshit because nobody is able to discuss anything.   I’m not talking about saving money. Having people work part time while still supplementing them doesn’t save money. But it can help move them toward being able to support themselves.

As for your fifty year old, it said healthy. If they can work they can’t work.

There's a phrase for that. We folks try to introduce a separate argument. Wish I could remember what it is called.

As to the OP: Sure give the needy aid; however have them abide to strict guidelines. I know the Military requires it. 

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 08:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So you're saying there is no such thing as fraud for these types of programs?

Nope.

I'm saying that the GOP runs on cutting spending and lowering the deficit. But they do that by going after the smaller social programs while spending more on things like the military above and beyond the "savings" they claim they will see.

(12-06-2018, 08:08 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Is it my fault that someone comes here and can't speak English, and now they are classified as having a Disability and they get money for that??

That's a BS one right off the bat. If you're going to come here you need to learn to speak the language, just about every city has ESL classes for free and if not for free, then that's what that money should be used for.

Uh, yeah...its all about people who come here and can't speak english.

Not that many english speakers getting SNAP and food stamps.

Sure.

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 08:00 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why does everyone keep bringing up the military?  Just more partisan bullshit because nobody is able to discuss anything.   I’m not talking about saving money. Having people work part time while still supplementing them doesn’t save money. But it can help move them toward being able to support themselves.

As for your fifty year old, it said healthy. If they can’t work they can’t work.

I brought it up because of what I wrote about to Mike (The other one):

The GOP claims to want to cut the deficit and spending but they increase more than they claim to save but cutting/changing social programs.

One of the problems I see with "having people work" is that has to be work for them to do.  And who decides if they can or can't work?

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 09:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a phrase for that. We folks try to introduce a separate argument. Wish I could remember what it is called.

As to the OP: Sure give the needy aid; however have them abide to strict guidelines. I know the Military requires it. 

You volunteer for the military.

People don't volunteer to live below the poverty level or to have a disability that prevents them from working or having chidren who are born premature.

But other than that you nailed it. 

[SunsetBengal]

(12-06-2018, 05:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that any attempt to reduce the need for the program needs to come from creating/updating social programs that help to put people to work.

What more programs do we need, in order to help people to improve their situation?  We have essentially free Community College education for anyone wanting and willing to use it.  Most Community Colleges have their course offerings specifically tailored to meet the job needs of their locality.  A hand up, rather than a hand out..  From my observations in life, proud people don't want "free stuff" as much as they just want to be in a better position to help themselves improve their situation.

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2018, 10:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: You volunteer for the military.

People don't volunteer to live below the poverty level or to have a disability that prevents them from working or having chidren who are born premature.

But other than that you nailed it. 

Folks don't volunteer for the aid? 

Hell, believe or not: Some folks "volunteer" for that hated Military to provide for their family.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

The only real problem I ever had with food stamps/SNAP was there was no directive on what all you could buy with it.

They should have made it so you can only buy fresh (or canned) fruit/vegetables, grains/beans/potatos/etc, meat, and milk (or baby food/formula). The things you actually need to get nutrition and grow up healthy.

Instead you all-too-often see people using their food stamps to get sugar water (kool-aid, pop, popsicles, 0% fruit "juice") and candy.

So I would want some kind of mandate towards buying real food only, or maybe see about having some kind of food delivery program where the government mass produces/buys the canned goods/grains/powered milk or whatnot that you need to get nutrition and packages them and ships them out. It would likely be cheaper when done in huge numbers than sending out SNAP cards loaded with money to use on garbage "food". (And theoretically could be a boost for the USPS.)

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 11:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Folks don't volunteer for the aid? 

They don't volunteer to in the positions that require them to need the aid.

(12-06-2018, 11:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell, believe or not: Some folks "volunteer" for that hated Military to provide for their family.

I didn't criticize anyone for doing it...I said there was a difference. Which there is.

Stop being so defensive and maybe the conversation will go better.

"hated" lol

[*bfine32*]

(12-06-2018, 11:47 PM)GMDino Wrote: They don't volunteer to in the positions that require them to need the aid.




I didn't criticize anyone for doing it...I said there was a difference.  Which there is.

Stop being so defensive and maybe the conversation will go better.

"hated" lol

And you have no idea what position folks are in that volunteer for the Military. Hell, it could be a position they didn't choose. 

Conversation is going fine. Who introduced the Military into this conversation about SNAP anyway?

No defense here. Simply stated perhaps there should be guidelines in place. 

[GMDino]

(12-06-2018, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you have no idea what position folks are in that volunteer for the Military. Hell, it could be a position they didn't choose. 

Such as?

No matter what they volunteered. No one volunteered to be out of work or born early or disabled.

If someone volunteered for the military in the hopes of bettering themselves good for them. SNAP and other programs are people who maybe cannot volunteer for that.

(12-06-2018, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Conversation is going fine. Who introduced the Military into this conversation about SNAP anyway?

That would be me.

But because I was talking about those fiscally responsible republicans who want to cut food stamps to "save money" but spend more than they save on things like (drum roll) the military.

(12-06-2018, 11:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: No defense here. Simply stated perhaps there should be guidelines in place. 

Yeah...you weren't defensive at all.

"hated"

[*bfine32*]

(12-07-2018, 12:03 AM)GMDino Wrote: Such as?

No matter what they volunteered.  No one volunteered to be out of work or born early or disabled.

If someone volunteered for the military in the hopes of bettering themselves good for them.  SNAP and other programs are people who maybe cannot volunteer for that.


That would be me.  

But because I was talking about those fiscally responsible republicans who want to cut food stamps to "save money" but spend more than they save on things like (drum roll) the military.


Yeah...you weren't defensive at all.  

"hated"  

And no matter what folks volunteer for SNAP and it is not only for folks that cannot volunteer for the Military. But hell, if you want to make lack of qualification for Military service a requirement before receiving SNAP then we're speaking the same language. 

I'm fully aware who introduced the Military into the conversation. We reap what we sow. 

Of course I wasn't defensive. 

[GMDino]

(12-07-2018, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: And no matter what folks volunteer for SNAP and it is not only for folks that cannot volunteer for the Military. But hell, if you want to make lack of qualification for Military service a requirement before receiving SNAP then we're speaking the same language. 

Why do you insist on arguing things people never said?

I said people do not volunteer to be in positions where they NEED SNAP. Not everyone who needs it signs up for it either. That is why certain people are eligible even if they do not sign up. But everyone who signs up for the military volunteered. If it was because they were in a situation that they did not create but they felt it would help them then those people are in the same boat as most of those on SNAP.

The military, like SNAP has steps that potential members/users need to go through

(12-07-2018, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm fully aware who introduced the Military into the conversation.

Then why ask other than to be snarky?

(12-07-2018, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: We reap what we sow.

Indeed. Which is why you created another series of posts arguing something that someone didn't say.

(12-07-2018, 12:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I wasn't defensive. 

"hated military"