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

[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.

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.

You're cherry picking.

While it's true that cost of drug testing exceeds the cost of the potentially saved money, it also proved that significant number of welfare recipients are drug users, and those people should not be part of the welfare program. I believe taxpayers would rather see that only those who deserve the benefits, receive the benefits, even if it cost us some more.

Second, what you fail to mention is that people that are not tested are not part of those statistics.

If you are drug user and someone wants to check if you are the drug user, what your normal reaction would be? Not be tested? Well, many people that refused testing are not recipients of food stamps, for simple reason that they are drug users who refused to be tested.

Also, some states, like Florida, requires applicants to be responsible for the cost of the screening. They can recover the costs if they pass the test and qualify for assistance.

 

[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.

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

That's the best ya got when I destroy your bullshit?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Hey Muslim lover, I give to Fisher House, what do you do?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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.

Back during the time of Obama, I saw on TV commercials about hungry children in the US. Now I want to know with all the food programs in public education how any kid could be hungry. Unless of course the money for the children isnt really going there but into a liberals hands who doesnt give a rats ass about children.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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.

Is that JoeB?

 

[impuretrash]

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.

Hey Muslim lover, I give to Fisher House, what do you do?

Leftists don't give to charity for any reason other than to brag about it on social media.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Remeber they arent very bright. Cunning.,.but not bright. And they are always at war with America. And they dont have to be right. Its the damage from the narrative itself they seek.

The left dominated media always acts as Minister of Propaganda to it's devoted ideologue politicians.
And I congratulate your post formatting skills. Very impressive.

 

[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.

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

You think the push for drug testing is about saving money or about government testing recipients for drugs because... they just want to?

No, it is demanded by the taxpayers who are sick and tired of paying high taxes and supporting parasites. Taxpayers don’t want to support people who don’t want to work, have multiple children out of wedlock and take drugs rather than contribute to society. They should be penalized, not the good people who work hard and pay taxes.

If your neighbor is getting in your backyard and stealing fruit from your orchard, or vegetables from your garden, and you get fed up with that, what do you do? You build the fence to stop him from doing it. Well, that fence most likely cost you much more than the value of stolen apples or tomatoes, but you build it anyways because you're fed up that someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to you.

 

[pknopp]

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

You think the push for drug testing is about saving money or about government testing recipients for drugs because... they just want to?

No, it is demanded by the taxpayers who are sick and tired of paying high taxes and supporting parasites. Taxpayers don’t want to support people who don’t want to work, have multiple children out of wedlock and take drugs rather than contribute to society. They should be penalized, not the good people who work hard and pay taxes.

If your neighbor is getting in your backyard ans stealing fruit from your orchid, or vegetables from your garden, and you get fed up with that, what do you do? You build the fence to stop him from doing it. Well, that fence most likely cost you much more than the value of stolen apples or tomatoes, but you build it anyways because you're fed up that someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to you.

Read my link. Very few getting help were on drugs. You can argue for this all day. I do not care because the courts are not going to allow it.

 

[keepitreal]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

 

[pknopp]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

No argument from me that we should have spoke up when companies started moving jobs offshore. We most certainly should have. But why did they do this? Greed. Oddly those who condemn greed over people get called names even today.

 

[RealDave]

Millions have already gotten a job and started paying for their own food.

Great news. But some will still qualify because Republicans think the current minimum wage is enough.

So millions get jopbs & just fuck those who have not. I get it.

Maybe if Trump did not borrow 1.5 trillion to boost the economy that he would not have to try to cut benefits to help pay for it?

 

[pknopp]

Millions have already gotten a job and started paying for their own food.

Great news. But some will still qualify because Republicans think the current minimum wage is enough.

So millions get jopbs & just fuck those who have not. I get it.

Maybe if Trump did not borrow 1.5 trillion to boost the economy that he would not have to try to cut benefits to help pay for it?

The House could introduce a bill to raise the minimum wage.

 

[RealDave]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

So you repeat the lie that poor people are living high on the hog on food stamps and government assistance.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

that has nothing to do with food stamps and everything to do with the kid's parents

 

[keepitreal]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

No argument from me that we should have spoke up when companies started moving jobs offshore. We most certainly should have. But why did they do this? Greed. Oddly those who condemn greed over people get called names even today.

No one should buy any Nike products in the USA
because Nike doesn't reinvest that money in the form of jobs
other then their stores selling their shit

How many manufacturing jobs could they create here
making their products

Pro sport leagues in the USA should not have
Nike as their sponsors

Michael Jordan should have made job creation
a condition of his contract

People aren't willing to stop watching football
or refuse to buy the latest Jordans

When you are not part of the solution
you are part of the problem

 

[pknopp]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

No argument from me that we should have spoke up when companies started moving jobs offshore. We most certainly should have. But why did they do this? Greed. Oddly those who condemn greed over people get called names even today.

No one should buy any Nike products in the USA
because Nike doesn't reinvest that money in the form of jobs
other then their stores selling their shit

How many manufacturing jobs could they create here
making their products

Pro sport leagues in the USA should not have
Nike as their sponsors

Michael Jordon should have made job creation
a condition of his contract

People aren't willing to stop watching football
or refuse to buy the latest Jordons

When you are not part of the solution
you are part of the problem

Nike makes an expensive shoe. No one can convince me that for what they sell their shoes for that they could not manufacture them here for a profit.

 

[keepitreal]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

So you repeat the lie that poor people are living high on the hog on food stamps and government assistance.

ROFLMFAO

No one is entitled to get food stamps
just to free up their own money for things they want
and otherwise could not afford

 

[Nostra]

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

Working two jobs to provide and wanting to have to do that is two different things. We used to have plenty of jobs where people could support two people working one job.

That is the problem. We don't condemn the greed that caused corporations to take the jobs to China but we condemn the idea that a person shouldn't have to work 65 hours just to buy groceries.

Whoa...who said anything about
working 65 hours just to buy groceries

There are people who don't want to work 1 job to provide
If you can't find a full time job then 2 part time jobs suffice
Whether someone wants to work 2 jobs to provide is irrelevant

The past is behind us, this is now
Things were cheaper, money went farther

The problem is people like to blame the greed they feed
If enough people would have boycotted companies
that would have made a difference

We allowed the jobs to go to China
These companies do not respond to noise they respond to revenue

The idea that people shouldn't have to do
what they don't want to do to take care of their responsibilities
is ridiculous to say the least

If you can't afford getting your nails done, you don't
If you can't afford cable, you watch regular television
If you can't afford the internet, you go to the library or a hot spot
If you can't afford chips, snakes and junk food, you go without
If you can't afford a fancy cell phone, get a government phone

If you can't afford the things you want,
unless the government aka taxpayers, gives you what you need
that's too damn bad

No argument from me that we should have spoke up when companies started moving jobs offshore. We most certainly should have. But why did they do this? Greed. Oddly those who condemn greed over people get called names even today.

Companies move offshore for 3 reasons:

1. Onerous regulations.
2. High taxes.
3 Unions.

Three things Dimwingers push on America 24/7/365

 

[Ame®icano]

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

You think the push for drug testing is about saving money or about government testing recipients for drugs because... they just want to?

No, it is demanded by the taxpayers who are sick and tired of paying high taxes and supporting parasites. Taxpayers don’t want to support people who don’t want to work, have multiple children out of wedlock and take drugs rather than contribute to society. They should be penalized, not the good people who work hard and pay taxes.

If your neighbor is getting in your backyard ans stealing fruit from your orchid, or vegetables from your garden, and you get fed up with that, what do you do? You build the fence to stop him from doing it. Well, that fence most likely cost you much more than the value of stolen apples or tomatoes, but you build it anyways because you're fed up that someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them, but belongs to you.

Read my link. Very few getting help were on drugs. You can argue for this all day. I do not care because the courts are not going to allow it.

I did check your link that omits important information, where 1600 Florida recipients declined drug test, therefore the data is distorted.

So let's do the math.

The Florida data shows that out of 7028 who took the test 182 failed, which is roughly 2.6%. There are 1600 who refused testing, and only reason you would refuse is because you know you gonna fail.

(1600+182)/(1600+7028 ) = 20.65% most likely took drugs/failed the test. The only unknown factor here is reason why would someone refuse to take the test, but the reason is obvious.

That tells me that 2.6% number is downplay to look insignificant. But when you look at it from different perspective, 20% looks much more serious.

Now, two lower courts decided drug testing is unconstitutional, and Florida did not go to challenge it higher and they drop the law. I wouldn't drop it, but revise it to have all people getting paid by the government (everyone including police, politicians, welfare recipients, librarians, etc.) be subject to drug testing, that way law is not targeting any specific income group.