Truly Progressive

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

 

[fncceo]

Not the utopian fantisies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

No comments, unless they're behind a paywall.

 

[bullwinkle]

Not the utopian fantisies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

What is your opinion of this, billy?

 

[AVISSSER]

Not the utopian fantisies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

Oh these 'news' articles slay me. This was such a poor attempt.

Intro--state purpose
"The budget resolution passed by the House on Thursday will push millions of already struggling people off food stamps, leaving the neediest Americans—children and the elderly among them—without food."

Gee I wonder where this is going?

First example
"Evan Teske, a 26-year-old medical student, needed assistance while he was working for Americorps. After graduating from college in 2014"

Statistical outlier

Second Example
Take, for example, Devon Bracher, who graduated from Vanderbilt with an engineering degree and was living with her two sisters in Portland, Oregon, when she applied to get on SNAP after not being able to find a job.

Another Statistical Outlier

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

What is your opinion of this, billy?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin

 

[bullwinkle]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

What is your opinion of this, billy?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin

I don't know what to say about this. The quote is true, of course. And yet it is so arbitrary in a situation that has so many causes.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

What is your opinion of this, billy?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin

I don't know what to say about this. The quote is true, of course. And yet it is so arbitrary in a situation that has so many causes.

It is not at all arbitrary, but the result of observation.

 

[bullwinkle]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

What is your opinion of this, billy?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
- Benjamin Franklin

I don't know what to say about this. The quote is true, of course. And yet it is so arbitrary in a situation that has so many causes.

It is not at all arbitrary, but the result of observation.

"I am all for doing good for the poor, BUT" and then goes on to list all the reasons for NOT doing good for the poor IMHO makes it arbitrary. That makes it seem as though doing good for the poor is not a good thing to do and negates everything up to the 'but'. In principle I think everyone should agree with Ben. However, in practicality I'm not for seeing the multitude of those outside the realm of 'able but not willing' cut off just to catch the few. I'm thinking of school lunches, nursing homes, disabled vets, etc. The two cited in the article had other options and could (probably should) forego gov't aid so they could aid others. But most do NOT have that choice and that's where the "but" stops me from swallowing old Ben whole.

 

[Zorro!]

Not the utopian fantasies of the Left. Be sure to look at the comments.

Under President Trump's new budget, if you don't work, you don't eat: Republicans are kicking people off SNAP

Does it bother you that this is a bald-faced lie?

SNAP caseloads had grown significantly between 2007 and 2011 as the recession and lagging recovery led more low-income households to qualify and apply for help. As the effects of the economic recovery began to reach low-income households, SNAP caseload growth slowed substantially and then started falling, and at a faster rate each year since.

Two factors drove SNAP’s rapid caseload growth between 2007 and 2013: first, more households qualified due to the steep recession and sluggish initial recovery, and second, a larger share of eligible households applied for help.

The widespread and prolonged effects of the recession, particularly the record long-term unemployment, may have made it more difficult for family members and communities to help people struggling to make ends meet, and households may have spent down the savings they had. Households that already were poor became poorer during the recession and may have been in greater need of help. Some individuals who may not have realized that they were eligible for SNAP, especially people working in low-wage jobs who had little connection to the human services system, may have gained experience with the eligibility rules and application procedures during a recession-related bout of unemployment and then continued participating after they resumed employment at low-wage jobs. In addition, states continued efforts they’d begun before the recession to reach more eligible households — particularly working families and senior citizens — by simplifying SNAP policies and procedures. For example, many states launched online SNAP applications and offered more telephone service during this period. Finally, take-up of SNAP among eligible households is higher when benefits are higher, research shows, so the 2009 Recovery Act’s temporary benefit increases may have raised participation rates.

The 2009 Recovery Act also raised SNAP costs by temporarily boosting SNAP benefits to provide fast and effective economic stimulus and push against the recession’s rising tide of hardship for low-income Americans. The Recovery Act’s benefit boost raised SNAP spending by over $40 billion, before ending early in fiscal year 2014.

NYT panics over 2020 race.

Democrats are united as never before. The debates and the recent assemblages of legislatures in New York state and Virginia have made that clear.

They stand for:

Open borders
Gun confiscation
Infanticide
Reparations
Welshing on student loans
Wealth confiscation
Ending bail
Pooping in the streets
Banning automobiles
Banning plastic​

None of those things appeals to most Americans. Combined they are a disaster for the party.

The problem is not that they are divided. The problem is that they are united behind bad, counter-productive, and idiotic ideas.

He ended his column, "If they don’t join together — if the Democrats opt for a circular firing squad — you can kiss the America you grew up in goodbye."

Really?

This is the America we grew up in, where drag queens host readings for toddlers at libraries? Where a judge in Texas orders a 7-year-old boy to be doped up with hormone-bending drugs because his mom wants to get back at her ex by turning his son into a daughter? Where a CEO loses his job because of a $1,000 campaign donation to a popular cause? Where the government sues the Little Sisters of the Poor to force them to buy birth control? Where a president is impeached not for any crime but over a phone call? Where the previous president tells laid off factory workers their jobs are not coming back, ha ha ha? Where saying all lives matter is racist but saying black lives matter is not?