Food stamp benefit expires for many Americans this year


#1

And they can all thank Obama for the Great Economic resurgence!

I’m thinking that the economy will get even better when all these folks have to go out and … purchase alarm clocks!:devil:

As many as 1 million Americans will stop receiving food stamps over the course of this year, the consequence of a controversial work mandate that has been reinstated in 22 states as the economy improves.

The 20-year-old rule – which was suspended in many states during the economic recession – requires that adults without children or disabilities must have a job in order to receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for more than three months, with some exceptions. Many states have begun to reimpose the federal rule as the economy recovers, with the largest group reviving it at the beginning of this year. As a result, many recipients’ three-month limit expired Friday.

In 2016, the time limit will be in effect in more than 40 states.

Food stamp benefit expires for many Americans this year - The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram


#2

The Truth about obama’s wonderful economy will start to raise it’s ugly head!
(Then what will the liberals have to say?)

For example …

> Many of the jobs being created in the recovery are low paying and part time — in some cases for less than 20 hours a week — so some people who manage to find jobs may qualify for, and need, SNAP, yet be subject to the three-month cut-off.


#3

"It’s all Bush’s fault!!!" :eusa_boohoo:


#4

It’s about time. If you are going to leach off the government then you need to work.


#5

Getting any form of assistance should be conditional of doing community service (if one doesn’t have/can’t get a job). As a liberal, I have no problem with assistance programs, but I have a huge problem with handouts with no strings attached.

Can’t get a job? OK, we’ll help you with rent and food. BUT, you’re going to go out and earn it: join the neighborhood watch, repaint fences, clean up around the town, volunteer at the nearby school, stare at the sky and write down cloud formations, DO SOMETHING to earn the assistance.

The liberal notion of free money handouts (which INCREASE if you have more kids) was the worst social-policy mistake of the last 50 years and helped destroy the black community.


#6

So, you’re saying ,DHL, Job Corps of the Roosevelt years?


#7

Democrats have known this for decades and it was the impetus for LBJ’s “War on Poverty.” Before Obama, ask any black person who was the “greatest President” of the 20th Century and they’ll tell you FDR. Why? Because his administration began the process of hand-outs–especially to racial minorities (other than Asians, of course.) Second place? LBJ, who MAY have been the worst racist since Woodrow Wilson to ever sit in the White House. Wilson’s favorite movie of his era was “Birth of a Nation”–a story about the rise in power and influence of the KKK. It was Wilson who insisted on the racial segregation of the U.S. Military services, by the way. I find it passingly strange that black Americans flock to these Democrats when it was Democrats who fought against the emancipation of slaves, instituted segregation, passed the “Jim Crow” laws, peopled ALL of the “white supremacy” organizations including the KKK, filibustered both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed the “rules” for welfare recipients that almost literally destroyed the black family and treat blacks as though they are still on the “plantation,” providing the heavy lifting to keep Democrats in political power, and otherwise ignoring their needs. And, it was a Democrat who assassinated MLK, Jr.


#8

Yes, and even further: You should have the right to a job that pays a living wage (some amount higher than the poverty level). Even if it means the government employees you digging holes and then filling them again.

A society as rich as ours should A) guarantee that anyone who works full-time should be paid enough to not require government assistance and B) people willing to work full-time, but can’t find full-time work WILL get a full-time job, with the government being the employer of last-resort.

Then you can get rid of all the welfare laws, except for the truly needy, like mentally ill, severely handicapped, etc.


#9

:rofl:


#10

Yes, it’s hilarious that full-time workers (haha, what full-time workers? I mean people working 3 part-time jobs) have to depend on food-stamps and rent assistance because wages are so low. Why has the GOP allowed a situation to exist where full-time workers cannot get by without help from the government? Does anyone here want to claim that a single-mom with two kids can live on $10 an hour? Isn’t this supposedly a Christian nation? Why is the GOP so content to let 45 million Americans live below the poverty level?


#11

BS. Who is it that arbitrarily sets the “poverty level?” Government…and you “trust” their figures implicitly? According to the US Census Bureau, Americans living at or below the government’s “poverty level” enjoy more material wealth that 4/5ths of the rest of the entire WORLD. Our “poor” have at least one color TV, telephones, many OWN their own homes, a large percentage are overweight–many grossly so, usually own a car and their homes are heated AND cooled.


#12

Are you kidding? Do you think a single mom making $10 an hour can raise a family, let alone save for her kids’ college, pay a mortgage, feed and clothe her family, pay for daycare, car insurance, maintenance, gas, etc.? That’s $1,600 a month, BEFORE deductions. Try living on that, AND raising kids, AND trying to save for their college. Rent, food, gas, and utilities alone would take all the money.

Who’s kidding who?


#13

:coffee_spray:


#14

Looks to me like the single mom didn’t take all of those responsibilities into account, before becoming a single mom?

Most especially education.

BTW: Since when and where is it stated that the government can set wages for businesses?

Too: Wages are based upon ability and need.

If all I am able to do is flip burgers then I can’t see why a burger flipping business should be responsible for my supporting my family?

Oh yeah, when wages go up … prices are soon to follow … unless the burger flipping business goes automation.
(As they are and will be)

Also: If $15.00 an hour is so great, why not make it $15.00 an hour immediately and not incrementally?

Because the liberals are lying!
They know that raising the wage hurts everyone so they do it in the least painful way and lie about the benefits.

I suggest raising the living wage to $100.00 an hour!
Yaaaaa


#15

How the $15 wage is already killing Seattle jobs

How the $15 wage is already killing Seattle jobs | New York Post


#16

Of course, because all single-earners are evil.

Most especially single parents trying to better themselves through education.

> BTW: Since when and where is it stated that the government can set wages for businesses?

Uh, minimum wage laws? Seriously, did not not know this?

> Too: Wages are based upon ability and need.

> If all I am able to do is flip burgers then I can’t see why a burger flipping business should be responsible for my supporting my family?

> Oh yeah, when wages go up … prices are soon to follow … unless the burger flipping business goes automation.
> (As they are and will be)

> Also: If $15.00 an hour is so great, why not make it $15.00 an hour immediately and not incrementally?

> Because the liberals are lying!
> They know that raising the wage hurts everyone so they do it in the least painful way and lie about the benefits.

> I suggest raising the living wage to $100.00 an hour!
> Yaaaaa

Uh huh. We must raise wages to $100 hour. There is no middle ground. Right.


#17

You don’t have to raise minimum wage one cent. The EITC can ensure that full-time workers earn enough to not qualify for government assistance. But you knew this right?

Policy Basics: The Earned Income Tax Credit | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities


#18
  1. A right? It’s a privilege, and should best be left as such. If one treats it as such, they’re likely to be a lot less careless about their work ethic.
  2. There’s government efficiency… :banghead:
  3. Right, with government oversight. It’s called communism. And like all malignant tumors, there’s a reason why it dies after it devours its host. It doen’t create; it uses and destroys.
  4. We can get rid of them anyway. Get rid of government involvement (including regulation) and genuine charity can handle it far more efficiently.

Christianity is about the individual helping people; not voting for the government to spend someone else’s money on it (and making a hash of it).

Why is the DNC so content to drive even more people into poverty so that they can make them dependent upon a nefarious government?

When it comes to the government setting the minimum wage, it’s the difference between a little poop and a lot of poop.


#19

The EITC is yet ANOTHER idiotic, far-left idea that many now consider a “right.” What it boils down to is the government taking YOUR money–which you earned by the sweat of your brow–and giving it to some doofus who DIDN’T earn it. It’s called “income redistribution” and is NOT the purpose of any legitimate government.


#20

Again, DHL you want the government to regulate more and more. . The Federal Government has no business in the private sector. This is an economy so over-regulated and overtaxed that businesses and jobs have gone overseas thus leaving the low wage earner in limbo. It was the government that started much of this. plus overzealous unions that outpriced production also sending jobs overseas. It really is apparent, you have no clue what business is about. This seems to be prevalent among all liberal progressives/democrats in this country.
You almost sound communistic in your beliefs where government controls business and allots wages to the masses, collecting hefty taxes, to supplement government mandated wages with government supplied benefits.