Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
DieChecker

Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps

143 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker

I heard several people talking about this, and heard about it on the car radio. At first I was shocked. Just dropping people off Food Stamps?!!

Then I read about it...

The disabled... still covered.

Hungry families with children... still covered.

Those that are not covered? Childless adults who are not disabled and worked less then 3 months (20 hours per week) out of 36 months...

Doesnt seem so harsh to me.

NBC News: Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nearly-700-000-will-lose-food-stamps-usda-work-requirement-n1095726

Quote

The USDA rule change affects people between the ages of 18 and 49 who are childless and not disabled. Under current rules, this group is required to work at least 20 hours a week for more than three months over a 36-month period to qualify for food stamps, but states have been able to create waivers for areas that face high unemployment.

The new rule would limit states from waiving those standards, instead restricting their use to those areas that have a 6 percent unemployment rate or higher. The national unemployment rate in October was 3.6 percent.

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
11 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Childless adults who are not disabled

And what constitutes being disabled?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
Quote

Nearly 36.4 million Americans in the "greatest economy ever" are on food stamps. At least half of all Americans have low-wage jobs, barely enough to cover living expenses, nevertheless, service their credit cards with record-high interest rates

The economy as a whole is undergoing profound structural changes with automation and artificial intelligence. Tens of millions of jobs will be lost by 2030. It's likely the collision of these forces means the welfare state is going nowhere and will only grow in size when the next recession strikes.

Cutting food stamps for low-income folks is the right move into creating a more leaner government, but there are severe social implications that could be triggered if the new measures are passed. 

And while President Trump wants to slash the welfare state for poor people, his supply-side policies and bailouts of corporate America have been record-setting in some respects. 

Actions by the administration clearly show that corporate welfare for Wall Street elites is more important than welfare for low-income folks. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/perfect-storm-trump-admin-cut-750000-food-stamps-ahead-recession

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

https://www.dol.gov/odep/faqs/general.htm#3

Quote

The term "disability" is defined by the federal government in various ways, depending on the context. For the purposes of federal disability nondiscrimination laws (such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Section 188 of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act), the definition of a person with a disability is typically defined as someone who (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more "major life activities," (2) has a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. More information on federal disability non-discrimination laws, visit DOL's Disability Nondiscrimination Law Advisor.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

Nearly 36.4 million Americans in the "greatest economy ever" are on food stamps. At least half of all Americans have low-wage jobs, barely enough to cover living expenses, nevertheless, service their credit cards with record-high interest rates.

So 35.7 million of them are going to retain food stamps. All who have children, disabilities, or live in high unemployment areas will retain this aid.

Cant say that I love credit cards though. They're basically extortionists. Give you $100 and end up with $400 for their trouble. 

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80

I have a hard time reconciling the motivational logic here.. So whats the idea, that foodstamps keep people in poverty, keeps them from getting of their couches and get to work? And retracting those foodstamps will change that?

I strongly, seriously doubt that. Seems to be an extreme oversimplification of the situation.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 minutes ago, Phaeton80 said:

I have a hard time reconciling the motivational logic here.. So whats the idea, that foodstamps keep people in poverty, keeps them from getting of their couches and get to work? And retracting those foodstamps will change that?

I strongly, seriously doubt that. Seems to be an extreme oversimplification of the situation.

Short answer... Yes.

You're Ok with 18 year olds that dont work and have nothing wrong with them getting free money/food?

How is this any different then a parent pushing their adult child out of the house to force them to "Grow Up"?

I believe this same logic worked fine in the 1990s when Bill Clinton updated the Welfare laws.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Short answer... Yes.

You're Ok with 18 year olds that dont work and have nothing wrong with them getting free money/food?

How is this any different then a parent pushing their adult child out of the house to force them to "Grow Up"?

I believe this same logic worked fine in the 1990s when Bill Clinton updated the Welfare laws.


For a certain percentage of those effected youre probably, partly correct. Id suspect that percentage, however, is lower than you would suppose.. (if only because youre implying 100% here). And people who do not belong to that 'lazy young adults' category are going to be effected to a point of despair.

Quote

The proposal will see a tightening of work requirements for recipients and removes individual states’ discretion to waive those rules for people in desperate need of the the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, NBC News reported.

States have previously been able to create waivers for people in high unemployment areas but the new Department of Agriculture rules removes that discretion and restricts waivers to areas that have unemployment rates of 6 percent or higher.

“With this rule change, President Trump is using a federal agency he controls to continue his egregious assault on those Americans most in need,” Cuomo said in a statement. “This action circumvents both the will of Congress and the flexibility that was historically afforded to states to administer nutrition assistance, and it will cause added hardship for tens of thousands of New Yorkers who are already struggling to make ends meet.”

Cuomo added, “Let’s be clear: This rule change is cold, heartless and despicable – and sadly unsurprising from a federal administration that gives tax cuts and other giveaways to millionaires, billionaires and corporations while continuing to chip away at the social safety net for the most vulnerable among us.”


Its surprising to me a lot of people like yourself are all too eager to have less money flow to 'lazy fellow Americans' (while seemingly ignoring the obvious fact a considerable %'age of those 'lazy people' are not to blame for their predicament), yet cheer on the taxcuts and other policies favouring Wallstreet / corporations.

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
17 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Short answer... Yes.

You're Ok with 18 year olds that dont work and have nothing wrong with them getting free money/food?

How is this any different then a parent pushing their adult child out of the house to force them to "Grow Up"?

I believe this same logic worked fine in the 1990s when Bill Clinton updated the Welfare laws.

It seems to me that the law already prohibited this from happening and that exceptions were made for states that have especially high unemployment rates and that's what is being stopped, yes?

If this is the case, then all they're doing is punishing people for living in certain areas with high unemployment, which seems awful. You're born in Detroit? Tough luck, matey. There aren't jobs in these areas and you're telling them to go get a job or starve or, realistically in some cases, die. 

Of course, this will hit minorities much harder than other groups given the huge racial disparity and institutional racism that exists within the US, which should come as no surprise with an administration that has an outed white supremacist, whose job it is to target minorities in any way he can, as a top policy maker.

You can bring Clinton into it, but he's not the best example. His policies with regards to minorities (especially black communities) were horrendous, and their memories of this have been shown to be at least partly responsible for such a low black turnout in 2016. So, maybe not the best comparison to make.

I just don't understand how people are okay with this and at the same time are okay with giving elites an amount of money that makes the food stamps look like a rounding error. This is a problem here in the UK as well. We're being taught to hate downwards. Rich people are okay to be gifted untold billions upon billions but God forbid poor see anything.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

The biggest problem internally with the U.S in my opinion is fraud. Insurance fraud, Medicare fraud, Welfare fraud, Disability compensation fraud etc.. I have witnessed food stamp fraud before and it is disgusting. This couple were in front of me in a grocery store check out line with what their 19 or 20 year old daughter. They were dressed like they had just came from a ball. The guy pulled out a money clip that had many $100 bills in it, then proceeded to pull out a few food stamps to pay for the stuff they got. That didn't bother me. I only had one or two items so I was literally 10 seconds behind them out the door. What bothered me was they then proceed to hop in that brand new Cadillac, which was parked illegally in the fire lane as well. Maybe at one time they needed food stamps, but their situation seems to have changed.

This country is trillions in debt, and we just give money away. So I have no problem with trying to stem the tide of giving food stamps to those who can, but refuse to work. If they are working only 3 months out of 36, then they are obviously living with others and shouldn't starve.

Edited by South Alabam
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Phaeton80 said:


For a certain percentage of those effected youre probably, partly correct. Id suspect that percentage, however, is lower than you would suppose.. (if only because youre implying 100% here). And people who do not belong to that 'lazy young adults' category are going to be effected to a point of despair.

True, but if those people become despondent/depressed they'll quickly qualify was mentally/emotionally disabled. And thus, as if by magic, qualify for food stamps. 

And I'd suppose that the percentage that HONESTLY will be thinking to hurt themselves is lower then you're implying. Most, I think, will go do that 20 hours for 3 months and then go back on Stamps for another 33 months.

Quote

Its surprising to me a lot of people like yourself are all too eager to have less money flow to 'lazy fellow Americans' (while seemingly ignoring the obvious fact a considerable %'age of those 'lazy people' are not to blame for their predicament), yet cheer on the taxcuts and other policies favouring Wallstreet / corporations.

Actually I cheered for my own taxes being cut.

From what I remember, the business tax cuts were to make the US more competitive with other nations. I'm in favor of that, regardless that it makes the wealthy wealthier. That's a problem for each corporation to deal with as it's own entity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
24 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

The biggest problem internally with the U.S in my opinion is fraud. Insurance fraud, Medicare fraud, Welfare fraud, Disability compensation fraud etc.

This is exactly what i meant about hating downwards. You put this as 'The biggest problem,' when it is, like I said, practically a rounding error compared to tax breaks, no corporation tax, millionaires and billionaires evading taxes, and elites doing basically the same thing but on a scale that our minds are almost unable to comprehend.

It's like saying that someone who steals a carton of milk is worse than Bernie Madoff. We're being taught to hate downwards. and people (mostly conservatives) eat that stuff right up.

24 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

This country is trillions in debt, and we just give money away. So I have no problem with trying to stem the tide of giving food stamps to those who can, but refuse to work. If they are working only 3 months out of 36, then they are obviously living with others and shouldn't starve.

They often say things like the above, then go into a thread about Sanders or Warren and hate on their proposed policies that would deal directly with the billionaires instead of targeting the 'shoplifters' (of which there are a truly minuscule number of offenders). 

Of course, it's conservative propaganda and indoctrination of this type that leads to people believing that poor people on food stamps are the reason the economy is in such a mess, and not the beneficiaries of socialist policies for the rich. It's actually one of the main ways (along with fearmongering about minorities, immigration, etc.) that conservatives worldwide dupe normal people into voting for parties that exclusively represent the super wealthy.

Just blame and hate on those who steal a carton of milk from shops and ignore those that steal the entire supermarket chain. Makes total sense.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It seems to me that the law already prohibited this from happening and that exceptions were made for states that have especially high unemployment rates and that's what is being stopped, yes?

If this is the case, then all they're doing is punishing people for living in certain areas with high unemployment, which seems awful. You're born in Detroit? Tough luck, matey. There aren't jobs in these areas and you're telling them to go get a job or starve or, realistically in some cases, die. 

Actually the state exemptions had nothing to do with unemployment rates, but with states voting to give themselves exemptions.

This new legislation actually sets a bar of 6% at down to local levels to get the exemption.

So high unemployment areas are still exempt. 

Quote

I just don't understand how people are okay with this and at the same time are okay with giving elites an amount of money that makes the food stamps look like a rounding error. This is a problem here in the UK as well. We're being taught to hate downwards. Rich people are okay to be gifted untold billions upon billions but God forbid poor see anything.

So, if the elites were getting screwed AND the poor were getting screwed, youd be ok with it?

I think the rich can pay more, but many European examples show it is easy to go too far. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ethereal_scout

Inflation is the killer - don't know if the US measure inflation or not? Positive inflation is wealth destruction, negative inflation if wealth creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Does this take being a student into account?

Because the demographic of childless adults who are disabled who work less then 20 hours a week, could be alot of students.

I've known a few students who used food stamps during college. 

I was too lazy to read the article so I'm just asking others lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

So I was reading up on this a bit and think I was mistaken in how I read the articles.

https://eligibility.com/food-stamps

Quote

If you are a childless adult who is unemployed without disabilities, you are limited to three months of SNAP benefits every three years.

https://eligibility.com/food-stamps/do-the-employment-requirements-for-eligibility-apply-to-everyone

Apparently I read it that they had to work 3 months to get 36 months of aid, but it is the other way around. A single healthy person can claim Food Stamps constantly as long as they are working at least half time, and make below a certain income threshold. A 3 month break of time, total, is allowed in that 36 months.

So not so much lazy sponges, but just people trying to game the system probably, for some extra cash. 

And that above doesnt change. What is changing is the state exemptions that override the 3 months. Allowing unlimited Food Stamps (if I understand correctly?), but without the half time work requirement. The exemptions are going to be Federally Controlled, rather then at the state level.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
6 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Does this take being a student into account?

Because the demographic of childless adults who are disabled who work less then 20 hours a week, could be alot of students.

I've known a few students who used food stamps during college. 

I was too lazy to read the article so I'm just asking others lol.

I'm not sure, but I've not read anything about students. Sounds likely they'll be affected.

Most students are dependents. But for those who are not, I'd not be against federal aid so they can eat.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I heard several people talking about this, and heard about it on the car radio. At first I was shocked. Just dropping people off Food Stamps?!!

Then I read about it...

The disabled... still covered.

Hungry families with children... still covered.

Those that are not covered? Childless adults who are not disabled and worked less then 3 months (20 hours per week) out of 36 months...

Doesnt seem so harsh to me.

NBC News: Nearly 700,000 will lose food stamps with USDA work requirement change.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nearly-700-000-will-lose-food-stamps-usda-work-requirement-n1095726

 

You forgot the people on social security that qualified for food stamps last year but now don't.  I know two people who fall in that category.  They have 1,100 social security a month to live on, paying rent of over 700.00 a month and 135.00 a month for medicare, with no other income.  They lost 3/4ths of the food stamp benefit about 3 months ago.  Probably won't qualify in 2020. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

vote Yang.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Cant say that I love credit cards though. They're basically extortionists. Give you $100 and end up with $400 for their trouble. 

Made possible by our compliant and lobbyist friendly legislators seeking to keep the campaign funds growing.  

Poor people don't give them money.  Corporations that extort poor people do.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
3 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I just don't understand how people are okay with this and at the same time are okay with giving elites an amount of money that makes the food stamps look like a rounding error. This is a problem here in the UK as well. We're being taught to hate downwards. Rich people are okay to be gifted untold billions upon billions but God forbid poor see anything.

Not too hard to understand, the rules are simple.

Government giving some middle class tax money to poor people  = BAD Socialism.  Poor people don't deserve middle class people's money.

Government giving some middle class tax money to rich people  = GOOD Capitalism.  Rich people deserve middle class people's money.

Who do you think wrote that script and built it into our society?

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2
16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

vote Yang.

Eh, 

350 million times 1k, monthly?

I'm sure that would help the poorest people, but would suck for everyone else.

As a middle-class person we would lose money. They would have to take from us to do it. There is just no way.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True, but if those people become despondent/depressed they'll quickly qualify was mentally/emotionally disabled. And thus, as if by magic, qualify for food stamps. 

I think that is too easy an out.  Some of them just wind up homeless because they don't have it together enough to seek help

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
18 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

You forgot the people on social security that qualified for food stamps last year but now don't.  I know two people who fall in that category.  They have 1,100 social security a month to live on, paying rent of over 700.00 a month and 135.00 a month for medicare, with no other income.  They lost 3/4ths of the food stamp benefit about 3 months ago.  Probably won't qualify in 2020. 

Are they over 50? If so then this particular rule change shouldnt affect them. If they're younger, then likely they are disabled? Again shouldnt affect them.

I did read there are two other rule changes, but I've not read into them yet. 

Did they say why they lost benefits? I know Republicans have been trying to undercut food stamps, but I'd not read it was in practice already.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phaeton80
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True, but if those people become despondent/depressed they'll quickly qualify was mentally/emotionally disabled. And thus, as if by magic, qualify for food stamps. 

And I'd suppose that the percentage that HONESTLY will be thinking to hurt themselves is lower then you're implying. Most, I think, will go do that 20 hours for 3 months and then go back on Stamps for another 33 months.

Actually I cheered for my own taxes being cut.

From what I remember, the business tax cuts were to make the US more competitive with other nations. I'm in favor of that, regardless that it makes the wealthy wealthier. That's a problem for each corporation to deal with as it's own entity.


Thats the everlasting argument though, isnt it.. Wasnt thesame 'logic' issued for the wholesale outsourcing policies some time ago?

Did you remember anything specific in regards to getting more competitive (with whom exactly, and why taxcuts of that magnitude were needed), so as to rationalise increasing the unbelievably unprecedented income disparity your nation is experiencing.. And why you would focus on the relatively low impact of 'frauds' of the little man instead of the comprehensive impact of frauds of the corporations and their elite..

Or did you just shrug your shoulders hearing that one sentence ('the business tax cuts were to make the US more competitive with other nations') and simply accepted it as necessary?

Edited by Phaeton80
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.