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

[pknopp]

There is a reason they dropped it. They knew they would lose.

 

[RealDave]

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

Things they want like heat ,rent, and medications.

 

[Ame®icano]

There is a reason they dropped it. They knew they would lose.

With the law as is written, they would.

One thing is for sure, they dropped it because of legality, not because of the cost.

 

[RealDave]

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

If a corp moves to another country, they pay the tax rate there & then owe the US the difference in that rate & the US rate. So, how do they save on taxes.

Cheap labor is a reason. They like to pollute.

So your solution is to reduce the minimum wage & allow them to pollute here instead of there? Really?

 

[RealDave]

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

 

[irosie91]

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.

cross the board drug testing for welfare recipients is DISGUSTING----
it is demeaning--------people with a really productive veggie garden
who will not share a few tomatoes and radishes are PIGS

 

[Nostra]

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

If a corp moves to another country, they pay the tax rate there & then owe the US the difference in that rate & the US rate. So, how do they save on taxes.

Cheap labor is a reason. They like to pollute.

So your solution is to reduce the minimum wage & allow them to pollute here instead of there? Really?

Link to your bullshit claim on taxes?

I said nothing about "my solution", so why do you insist on exposing yourself as a colossal liar?

 

[irosie91]

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

disabled people TOO

 

[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

So poor people are all just lazy.

Where did I say that?

 

[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

So poor people are all just lazy.

disabled people TOO

How many truly disabled people are getting kicked off food stamps?

 

[irosie91]

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

disabled people TOO

How many truly disabled people are getting kicked off food stamps?

I don't know. I hope not

 

[Blues Man]

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

disabled people TOO

How many truly disabled people are getting kicked off food stamps?

I don't know. I hope not

Yet you imply that I think disabled people are lazy.

HAve you always been such a twat?

 

[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.

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

Some are lazy. Some just chose to be poor. Some just cant get ahead. Some just make wrong life choices.

But mostly, it's because they're lazy.

 

[sparky]

and some are madder than eels

so go choose your metric

in the end you've an obvious choice

~S~

 

[Nostra]

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

So poor people are all just lazy.

Where did I say that?

Fakedave just makes shit up and claims people say it because he is too fucking stupid to carry on a conversation.

 

[Ame®icano]

If a corp moves to another country, they pay the tax rate there & then owe the US the difference in that rate & the US rate. So, how do they save on taxes.

Cheap labor is a reason. They like to pollute.

So your solution is to reduce the minimum wage & allow them to pollute here instead of there? Really?

Not really. They owe to US government tax on profits made in US and tax on money they brought in from outside. If they keep their foreign earned money out, they don't have to pay taxes.

Apple stashed some $250B in cash and assets overseas and refused to bring it in because of high tax rates.

Trump admin offered them a one time deal, to bring money in at lower rate. Had Apple decided to bring all of its overseas cash back to the US, they would have to pay tax rate of 35 percent at the time, which was about $88 billion, minus the taxes paid to foreign governments. With one time deal on 15% tax for money they bring in, they paid $38 billion, and saved $50 billion. Without the deal, they would just keep their money outside.

 

[Papageorgio]

I am not a federal employee, I work in an industry where I am subject to random drug tests by the federal government.

Funny how people need to take drug tests to keep a job because of the government however it is wrong to ask those doing nothing and accepting taxpayer money for food and shelter, not to take random drug tests.

Seems backwards to me.

 

[sparky]

Funny how people need to take drug tests to keep a job because of the government however it is wrong to ask those doing nothing and accepting taxpayer money for food and shelter, not to take random drug tests.

Good one papa!

~S~

 

[Papageorgio]

If a corp moves to another country, they pay the tax rate there & then owe the US the difference in that rate & the US rate. So, how do they save on taxes.

Cheap labor is a reason. They like to pollute.

So your solution is to reduce the minimum wage & allow them to pollute here instead of there? Really?

Not really. They owe to US government tax on profits made in US and tax on money they brought in from outside. If they keep their foreign earned money out, they don't have to pay taxes.

Apple stashed some $250B in cash and assets overseas and refused to bring it in because of high tax rates.

Trump admin offered them a one time deal, to bring money in at lower rate. Had Apple decided to bring all of its overseas cash back to the US, they would have to pay tax rate of 35 percent at the time, which was about $88 billion, minus the taxes paid to foreign governments. With one time deal on 15% tax for money they bring in, they paid $38 billion, and saved $50 billion. Without the deal, they would just keep their money outside.

Interesting how a liberal company would move their money back here for a conservative President and not for the previous liberal President. Looks like liberal corporations are just as greedy as liberals that are on the government dole.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

cross the board drug testing for welfare recipients is DISGUSTING----
it is demeaning--------people with a really productive veggie garden
who will not share a few tomatoes and radishes are PIGS

Your perception of "sharing" is rather fucked up. You share something that is yours, at your own will. If you take something without someone's permission, that's steeling.

But let's pit few tomatoes or radishes on the side, and say that neighbor come to your house, take money from your wallet without your permission, is that sharing?

You lefties are totally fucked in the head.