Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

[Papageorgio]

Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

Millions of Americans face losing access to food assistance under proposed rule changes by the Trump administration, a new analysis has found.

The changes, if they had been instituted last year, would have resulted in 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1m fewer households receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as Snap or food stamps, during an average month, according to the study.

The altered rules would also reduce benefits received by many people, with 2.2m households set to have their average monthly assistance cut by $127. Nearly one million students would lose access to free or discounted lunches.

The poor are an easy target for Cons. Typical bonehead politics.

And it never occurred to you that many people on food stamps don't need them did it?

There are people who will exploit any system. But it is better that a few rob the system than a single child goes hungry.

2.5 million kids go hungry in Britain everyday, why don’t you take care of your own?

 

[Ame®icano]

Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

Millions of Americans face losing access to food assistance under proposed rule changes by the Trump administration, a new analysis has found.

The changes, if they had been instituted last year, would have resulted in 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1m fewer households receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as Snap or food stamps, during an average month, according to the study.

The altered rules would also reduce benefits received by many people, with 2.2m households set to have their average monthly assistance cut by $127. Nearly one million students would lose access to free or discounted lunches.

The poor are an easy target for Cons. Typical bonehead politics.

And it never occurred to you that many people on food stamps don't need them did it?

There are people who will exploit any system. But it is better that a few rob the system than a single child goes hungry.

But, but... children!!!

There are more than "few" who exploit the system. Unless you were thinking of few millions.

However, the people who exploit the system most are Democrats, who use EBT/SNAP to keep their voting base in check, and because they need them, they intentionally turn the blind eye to EBT/SNAP abuse. They are real criminals.

 

[Nostra]

Have you met someone that told you that a second job
Bitch, you're confused, not I... I'm a she, not a he

No, I'm not lying, I didn't make it up
I have no reason to

Sorry for the gender mistake and if you want to further discuss this unlike a 12 year old I would be happy to.

Instead of apologizing for mistaking my gender
how about apologizing for calling me a liar

The person you talked to was not making "good" money at her second job. She might have made "enough" to put her above the level where she qualified for certain benefits and that is a problem.

A single female doesn't make squat in SNAP benefits. That would mean she has kids. No woman with kids is going to like that second job which would make her constantly away from the kids.

Do we make it hard for people getting benefits to better themselves? We do in some cases. That should change.

She has a daughter

Why should it matter if a woman doesn't like
being away from her kids because she has to work
to support her responsibilities

So, it's ok for other people to work full time
to shoulder the responsibilities of those who don't want to

We make it easy for people to be irresponsible
and avoid sacrificing their wants to provide their own needs

I don't like working 2 jobs but I do what I have to do

Right wing dogma stresses that people have to have these economic burdens but then resents giving them any help. Breathtakingly hypocritical.

England requires dupes like you so support the royal inbreds.

Perhaps you should clean up that shithole before worrying about the country that kicked your ass-backward hicks out.

 

[Nostra]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

 

[pknopp]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

 

[Nostra]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

Hey dumbfuck, the Government requires millions of it's employees to be drug tested for employment.

Good Lord you are stupid.

 

[Ame®icano]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

In order to get food stamps you have to meet some requirements. One of them is to prove they don't make enough money. Correct?

How do they prove that?

According to you, we can't really ask them to prove it, that would also be unconstitutional, so we should just trust them to their word.

 

[Flash]

Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

Millions of Americans face losing access to food assistance under proposed rule changes by the Trump administration, a new analysis has found.

The changes, if they had been instituted last year, would have resulted in 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1m fewer households receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as Snap or food stamps, during an average month, according to the study.

The altered rules would also reduce benefits received by many people, with 2.2m households set to have their average monthly assistance cut by $127. Nearly one million students would lose access to free or discounted lunches.

The poor are an easy target for Cons. Typical bonehead politics.

And it never occurred to you that many people on food stamps don't need them did it?

There are people who will exploit any system. But it is better that a few rob the system than a single child goes hungry.

You are confused. The way for a child not to go hungry is for the parents to provide food for the child.

Not for the filthy government to steal my money to provide a filthy bloated out of control corrupt welfare state.

 

[Ame®icano]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

Hey dumbfuck, the Government requires millions of it's employees to be drug tested for employment.

Good Lord you are stupid.

Correct.

The purpose of the food stamps is to subsidies for the money that person would otherwise make thru employment. All recipients should be tested.

 

[Grumblenuts]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

What a dumbass you are.

In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.

 

[Mac-7]

Very true

Republicans sold out the American people because they wanted the economy to fail and make Obama a one term president

Thanks for the news report and the view from the Bizzaro universe.

If the Republicans did not want the economy to fail under Obama, why did they vote for TARP and auto bailouts under Bush and not a single Republican voted for them under Obama?

Obama did nothing for average Americans

He bailed out wall st and the teachers union but his stimulus package was a joke

 

[Nostra]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

What a dumbass you are.

In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.

Conveniently, you provide no link.

 

[Mac-7]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

What a dumbass you are.

In 2012, an evaluation of the program had startling results: After three years and 87,000 screenings, only one person had failed the drug test, with huge costs for the state, which saved a few hundred dollars by denying benefits, compared to the hundreds of thousands spent to conduct the tests.

Most welfare goes to children who are supporting their welfare bum single moms and live in boyfriends

And the kids usually dont get hooked on drugs till they are teenagers

 

[Likkmee]

 

[pknopp]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

Hey dumbfuck, the Government requires millions of it's employees to be drug tested for employment.

Good Lord you are stupid.

When you decide to discuss this above a 7th grade level, that would be great.

 

[Mac-7]

Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

Millions of Americans face losing access to food assistance under proposed rule changes by the Trump administration, a new analysis has found.

The changes, if they had been instituted last year, would have resulted in 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1m fewer households receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as Snap or food stamps, during an average month, according to the study.

The altered rules would also reduce benefits received by many people, with 2.2m households set to have their average monthly assistance cut by $127. Nearly one million students would lose access to free or discounted lunches.

The poor are an easy target for Cons. Typical bonehead politics.

Able bodied adults should not get free food from the government

So, people who work at Walmart, and get food stamps aren't able bodied adults?

They are able bodied and do not deserve food stamps

 

[pknopp]

the problem of unnecessary benefits DEPENDENCE

Similar to
The Myth of Welfare and Drug Use

Then you have no problem with drug testing welfare recipients in order to get free money taken from those with jobs that required them to be drug tested.

Why are you so willing to dismantle the Constitution here? We will also note that the places that have done this before it was ruled unconstitutional it made little difference.

The Constitution restricts the government, not private enterprise. The Constitution is clear in that it can not make people prove they are innocent of something.

I can't believe that people still do not understand this.

In order to get food stamps you have to meet some requirements. One of them is to prove they don't make enough money. Correct?

How do they prove that?

According to you, we can't really ask them to prove it, that would also be unconstitutional, so we should just trust them to their word.

Your complaint is with those who thought it better to not appeal the rulings.

Florida drops bid to require drug tests for welfare applicants

Besides, it doesn't work and costs more than it saves.

What 13 states discovered after spending hundreds of thousands drug testing the poor

 

[Mac-7]

Millions could lose access to food stamps under Trump proposal, study finds

Millions of Americans face losing access to food assistance under proposed rule changes by the Trump administration, a new analysis has found.

The changes, if they had been instituted last year, would have resulted in 3.7 million fewer people and 2.1m fewer households receiving the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as Snap or food stamps, during an average month, according to the study.

The altered rules would also reduce benefits received by many people, with 2.2m households set to have their average monthly assistance cut by $127. Nearly one million students would lose access to free or discounted lunches.

The poor are an easy target for Cons. Typical bonehead politics.

Able bodied adults should not get free food from the government

So, people who work at Walmart, and get food stamps aren't able bodied adults?

heh, i'll tell you what Sobi, go to your local market, one of those big ones, first few days of the month, and get back to us

~S~

I have a true story

I was in a large supermarket breaking a hundred dollar bill at the cashiers cage

It was announced that due to technical problems food stamps would be processed through the cashiers cage

I was amazed to see almost all of the shoppers in the store were on food stamps

It really opened my eyes

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Small contingent......A LARGE contingent of Republicans voted for TARP when Bush was asking

But Republicans wanted the economy to collapse under Obama, they wanted the auto industry to fail while Obama was President

All so they could win in 2012

More democrats voted for TARP than republicans. Go crawl back into your hole, troll.

And your talking points from 2009 about the auto industry failing are ridiculous.
If GM had to restructure their debt the way Ford had done only a short while earlier instead of having Barry Obama shovel money straight from the Treasury into their poorly managed business where the unions were wagging the dog
(and GM is still struggling with their same problems) the effect on the rest of the auto industry would be almost
unnoticeable.

And we wouldn't be 10.6 billion dollars poorer because Obama set the terms of the bailout tied to GM stock, which has not done well. In the five years since GM's bankruptcy it made $22.6 billion. But taxpayers lost $10.6 billion on bailout that saved the company.
Wake up, fool!

.

 

[sparky]

cashiers cage

too good.....

~S~