SNAP's cuts have many worried.

[miketx]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

One day he's a government expert and the next an infectious disease expert. Who knew?

You really should not post when you are drunk, you make no sense

And then some days he pretends he's a seer.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

One day he's a government expert and the next an infectious disease expert. Who knew?

You really should not post when you are drunk, you make no sense

And then some days he pretends he's a seer.

One does not need to be a seer to know when someone is drunk posting.

This thread has zero to do with infectious diseases yet here you are talking about such things.

Then I guess you could just be an illiterate moron, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or then again you could be both, so now we have a whole range of options.

 

[22lcidw]

My recollection had been that you were a reasonably intelligent feller Will. Either Donald Dumbed you Down or my recollection was off

If Trump hadn't come along, I'd have to have run and won the Presidency....I'm late in the 4th quarter so I let him do it and am enjoying the hell out of him doing it while I kick back and enjoy my golden years. Your drug-addled recollections obviously didn't include my years on the Slate board calling for open warfare with the Swamp.

Ahh good ol' Slate. I found that place during the 2000 hanging chad debacle when SCOTUS selected Junior. Mostly BallotBox as I recall. All the boards eventually become cesspool RW fever swamps. This one no exception.

The SCOTUS didn't select anybody. They asked the lower Florida courts to explain their judicial legislation.

Your opinion. What Scalia essentially said was that continuing to count the votes could be detrimental to Junior. It was pure partisan BS. But Jeb! and his sidekick Katherine "Cruella" Harris put the fix in. And we got Iraq. Yay us!

After 9/11 there had to be a response. Whether Iraq was right is debatable. But what would the Dems have done?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

My recollection had been that you were a reasonably intelligent feller Will. Either Donald Dumbed you Down or my recollection was off

If Trump hadn't come along, I'd have to have run and won the Presidency....I'm late in the 4th quarter so I let him do it and am enjoying the hell out of him doing it while I kick back and enjoy my golden years. Your drug-addled recollections obviously didn't include my years on the Slate board calling for open warfare with the Swamp.

Ahh good ol' Slate. I found that place during the 2000 hanging chad debacle when SCOTUS selected Junior. Mostly BallotBox as I recall. All the boards eventually become cesspool RW fever swamps. This one no exception.

The SCOTUS didn't select anybody. They asked the lower Florida courts to explain their judicial legislation.

Your opinion. What Scalia essentially said was that continuing to count the votes could be detrimental to Junior. It was pure partisan BS. But Jeb! and his sidekick Katherine "Cruella" Harris put the fix in. And we got Iraq. Yay us!

No, it was judicial legislation. The recount laws were very clear. Recount all you want, but have the ballots certified on the seventh day, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. What the Florida courts said is "This is is Al Gore, so we rule that this law does not have to be followed." That's why the SC sent it back asking for an explanation. They wanted to know what gave the Florida courts the right to subvert written law.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

Letting people starve, while Trump holds near every weekend at one of his resorts on my tax dollar.... I'd rather feed the needy than pay humongous amounts of money for him to enrich his own resorts.

This man said in his campaign he would never golf, he would be too busy working....while mocking Obama.

No one is allowed to starve. The biggest problem for those people is... being too damn fat.

Getting a job is easier than ever in Trump's America.

President Trump has just donated his wage to combat Corona virus. Great charitable president we have.

It's harder to get a job now in TRUMPs great economy..... unemployment is low, we are nearly at full capacity for the kind of job these people would get, imo. There will always be poor people, that we have to take care of, or give a lift up.... now, and in Christ's time and in Moses time etc... not all are slackers...

And the bottom line is we should not have to pay for his staff and Ron Paul or Ted Cruise or Mulveyney or his press secretary etc etc etc to spend weekends at his resorts, but we do.... they turn it in as expenses... And then secret service, and air force one and maybe it's pilot and crew to stay there every or near, weekend....

While you take away $197 dollars a month of food assistance for someone who needs it... it's just not right....imho.

Hopefully they can find a church or soup kitchen....

The law worked in states that had it for the last several years. It will affect only the people between the ages of 18 to 49, physically capable of working, and no dependents.

 

[miketx]

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

One day he's a government expert and the next an infectious disease expert. Who knew?

You really should not post when you are drunk, you make no sense

And then some days he pretends he's a seer.

One does not need to be a seer to know when someone is drunk posting.

This thread has zero to do with infectious diseases yet here you are talking about such things.

Then I guess you could just be an illiterate moron, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or then again you could be both, so now we have a whole range of options.

Lol, the politics of the left are always the same. Deflect, lie, rinse repeat, destroy character.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

It is used in a different program.

Trump's budget was not smaller, it did not have less spending.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

One day he's a government expert and the next an infectious disease expert. Who knew?

You really should not post when you are drunk, you make no sense

And then some days he pretends he's a seer.

One does not need to be a seer to know when someone is drunk posting.

This thread has zero to do with infectious diseases yet here you are talking about such things.

Then I guess you could just be an illiterate moron, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or then again you could be both, so now we have a whole range of options.

Lol, the politics of the left are always the same. Deflect, lie, rinse repeat, destroy character.

It is a shame you lack the intelligence to see the irony of your post.

 

[miketx]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

It is used in a different program.

Trump's budget was not smaller, it did not have less spending.

How do you know? You don't really know jack, you babble endlessly about things you know nothing of.

 

[miketx]

One day he's a government expert and the next an infectious disease expert. Who knew?

You really should not post when you are drunk, you make no sense

And then some days he pretends he's a seer.

One does not need to be a seer to know when someone is drunk posting.

This thread has zero to do with infectious diseases yet here you are talking about such things.

Then I guess you could just be an illiterate moron, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Or then again you could be both, so now we have a whole range of options.

Lol, the politics of the left are always the same. Deflect, lie, rinse repeat, destroy character.

It is a shame you lack the intelligence to see the irony of your post.

Classic demobabble.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

You can't withdraw any money from SNAPs to buy those things. However, there are plenty of times I seen people put all that and more on the belt, pay for their food items with SNAP's, and then whip out a wad of cash for those other things.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Trump is not cutting the budget nor reducing the deficit, he is merely moving where the money is spent

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

It is used in a different program.

Trump's budget was not smaller, it did not have less spending.

How do you know? You don't really know jack, you babble endlessly about things you know nothing of.

one does not spend 20 years with the government without knowing how it works.

 

[miketx]

I have no idea what that means, or how you got that out of the OP.

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

It is used in a different program.

Trump's budget was not smaller, it did not have less spending.

How do you know? You don't really know jack, you babble endlessly about things you know nothing of.

one does not spend 20 years with the government without knowing how it works.

One can and does, apparently.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You said "Now Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit..."

This is false, I pointed it out.

Seems simple enough

Then what happens to the money saved from the program?

It is used in a different program.

Trump's budget was not smaller, it did not have less spending.

How do you know? You don't really know jack, you babble endlessly about things you know nothing of.

one does not spend 20 years with the government without knowing how it works.

One can and does, apparently.

Sorry if you lack the intelligence to pick things up after 20 years, but most of us do not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

You can't withdraw any money from SNAPs to buy those things. However, there are plenty of times I seen people put all that and more on the belt, pay for their food items with SNAP's, and then whip out a wad of cash for those other things.

Right next door is a Walgreens. And people do use snap to purchase those items. I think you will find that most snap programs are managed by the State although it's mostly Federal Funds. The Feds can specify that if the State wants the funds, they have to clean up their act.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

You can't withdraw any money from SNAPs to buy those things. However, there are plenty of times I seen people put all that and more on the belt, pay for their food items with SNAP's, and then whip out a wad of cash for those other things.

Right next door is a Walgreens. And people do use snap to purchase those items. I think you will find that most snap programs are managed by the State although it's mostly Federal Funds. The Feds can specify that if the State wants the funds, they have to clean up their act.

That may be, I don't live in your state. While technically purple, our state leadership is red. They don't allow that here. Ours is strictly for food items only.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

CHICAGO (AP) — Having food stamps offers Richard Butler stability he’s rarely known in his 25 years. He was in state custody at age 2, spent his teen years at a Chicago boys’ home and jail for burglary, and has since struggled to find a permanent home.

The $194 deposited monthly on his benefits card buys fresh produce and meat.

“It means the world to me,” said Butler, who shares a one-bedroom apartment with two others. “We can go without a lot of things, like phones and music. We can’t go without eating.”

But that stability is being threatened for people like Butler, who are able-bodied, without dependents and between the ages 18 and 49. New Trump administration rules taking effect April 1 put hundreds of thousands of people in his situation at risk of losing their benefits. They hit particularly hard in places like Illinois, which also has been dealing with a separate, similar change in the nation's third-largest city.

From Hawaii to Pennsylvania, states are scrambling to blunt the impact, with roughly 700,000 people at risk of losing benefits unless they meet certain work, training or school requirements. They've filed a multi-state lawsuit, expanded publicly funded job training, developed pilot programs and doubled down efforts to reach vulnerable communities, including the homeless, rural residents and people of color.

States scramble to prepare ahead of food stamps rule change

Just a little something different from the 50 primary topics today.

For the last year or so, all we have seen are the leftists on this board protest Trump's spending. Well, Trump heard your pleas. Now he's cutting spending. This is not a new idea, it's been implemented in many of the Republican governed states, and seems to have been successful.

Now that Trump is cutting the budget to reduce the deficit, how many of you spending complainers approve of his idea? After all, the economy is doing well, so you can't complain that some people can't get a job. It won't hurt our elderly as the age limit is up to 49. It won't hurt the children because these standards only apply to those with no dependents. What can you object to?

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

You can't withdraw any money from SNAPs to buy those things. However, there are plenty of times I seen people put all that and more on the belt, pay for their food items with SNAP's, and then whip out a wad of cash for those other things.

Right next door is a Walgreens. And people do use snap to purchase those items. I think you will find that most snap programs are managed by the State although it's mostly Federal Funds. The Feds can specify that if the State wants the funds, they have to clean up their act.

That may be, I don't live in your state. While technically purple, our state leadership is red. They don't allow that here. Ours is strictly for food items only.

While Colorado is technically a purple state, it's controlled by the Dems. Both houses and the Governor. When you have that, nothing good can come from it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This guy is unmarried and living with two others in a one deb apartment... He has little in life and you think he needs motivation by making him starve...

This guy didn't have a great time growing up.. Thing is you don't care, has he refused programs? are the programs any good?

Let's start, Why didn't Trump increase funding for public funding job training first, are you sure there is enough spaces?

Try living on minimum wage or a low fixed income. People around here are primarily on either low income or fixed low income. It's not their fault that the only real jobs available are less than 32 hours a week, have nightmarish work schedules that prevent another job or are a low fixed income.

I have a better idea. Tighten up what can be purchased under Snap. Stop the buying of energy drinks, chips, soda pop. Stop with the X number dollars that can be withdrawn to pay for their cigarettes, booze and drugs. The ones that really need it can't afford those things but the ones that really don't need it (including ones with dependents) seem to do quite well. Do that and the cost of Welfare goes way, way down and it can go to the ones that need it. The Freeloaders would be better off working.

You can't withdraw any money from SNAPs to buy those things. However, there are plenty of times I seen people put all that and more on the belt, pay for their food items with SNAP's, and then whip out a wad of cash for those other things.

Right next door is a Walgreens. And people do use snap to purchase those items. I think you will find that most snap programs are managed by the State although it's mostly Federal Funds. The Feds can specify that if the State wants the funds, they have to clean up their act.

That may be, I don't live in your state. While technically purple, our state leadership is red. They don't allow that here. Ours is strictly for food items only.

While Colorado is technically a purple state, it's controlled by the Dems. Both houses and the Governor. When you have that, nothing good can come from it.

That much we know. The theme of my thread though is that Democrats have been complaining almost non-stop about the spending under Trump, and yet when he cuts down on spending, they bitch. Look at every leftist that participated here. They're not happy about it.

I won't lay the rug of Hypocrisy at their door step alone. We Republicans do the same thing. Yeah, we need to cut things, but don't you cut anything I'm in favor of!

This is the problem in our country. We've become addicts to these government programs, and we don't want it to stop. We instead blame the politicians for the spending instead of ourselves. The Republicans understand the problem because it's difficult to take things away from people, so we object to new social goodies. The Democrats want to get people hooked on more programs to the point the government will eventually have to take 2/3 of our paychecks in the future just to keep them running.