Welfare Queen says Working is Stupid

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not from what I've seen.

My grocery store is loaded with Food Stamp whores. You should see what these people put in their carts.

Yes, they buy the food with their SNAP's cards, but it's never just SNAP food. Afterwards, they load up the belt with greeting cards, flowers, huge bags of dog food or cat litter, cigarettes and beer. A carton of cigarettes here cost a little over sixty bucks. And of course, they pull out that wad of cash to pay for those things.

A couple of times I've been behind them and because they walk so slow (due to their weight at times) I see the vehicles they load their goodies in. I wish I could afford some of those vehicles that they own.

I have a work acquaintance that moved in a few doors down from me a couple of years ago. When I seen him at work, we began talking about his move there. It's a HUD house and he gets to live there for free because it's in his girlfriends name. He works full-time and doesn't make bad money.

One day I seen him move out and later asked him what was up? He told me his girlfriend didn't like the house they moved into because it was on a main street, and she didn't like the noise. Poor dear. So HUD found them a house on a quieter street.

It's bad enough we have to keep a roof over their heads, and it's bad enough it's in the suburbs where working people live. But for crying out loud, now we have to custom taylor a home for people like this too????

Looks can often be deceiving, particular when you're looking for a certain behavior which you seem to be.

SNAP benefits can be as low as $15/mo although the average across the country is about $250/mo. More than 80 percent of adults participants work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. . 44% of all SNAP participants are children and 70% of all benefits go to households with children. Having an EBT card certainly does not make you a welfare queen.

Yes, I do look at behavior. And there is no reason why taxpayers should be feeding people who are using their cash (that they work for) to feed their multiple pets instead of themselves. It reminds me of the family I threw out of my apartment for not paying their rent a couple of years ago.

While these goodies may help a select few people, it precludes others from bettering themselves because they don't want to lose those benefits.

A friend of mine works at a company that uses a lot of temporary help. When things get busy, they ask these workers if they can work more hours. The answer is usually NO. Why? Because they need to keep their income below a certain level before they start losing their SNAP's benefits.

I work in industry and see similar events. Some of our customers only hire temps. They put them to work for several months to sort of try them out. If the worker shows signs of being a good worker, that's who they hire from the agency instead of hiring from outside.

So who do you think they will choose when they need to hire somebody full time--a person who will only work so many hours because of their SNAP's benefits, or a person that's willing to give them their all anytime they need it?

SNAP benefits phase out gradually as you earn more money. For example a family of 4 (1 adult and 3 kids) living in Texas with an income of $2,000/mo will get $200/mo in SNAP benefits.

Now suppose you have the opportunity to increase your income by $500/mo. Your SNAP benefits will go down $120, but that will be offset by your addition $500 in income. Now suppose you increase your monthly income by $1,000/mo. You would lose all your SNAP benefits, $200 but it will be offset by your addition $1,000 income. The way SNAP benefits are calculated, you will always come out ahead by earning more money.
www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp .

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

 

[Flopper]

Looks can often be deceiving, particular when you're looking for a certain behavior which you seem to be.

SNAP benefits can be as low as $15/mo although the average across the country is about $250/mo. More than 80 percent of adults participants work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. . 44% of all SNAP participants are children and 70% of all benefits go to households with children. Having an EBT card certainly does not make you a welfare queen.

Yes, I do look at behavior. And there is no reason why taxpayers should be feeding people who are using their cash (that they work for) to feed their multiple pets instead of themselves. It reminds me of the family I threw out of my apartment for not paying their rent a couple of years ago.

While these goodies may help a select few people, it precludes others from bettering themselves because they don't want to lose those benefits.

A friend of mine works at a company that uses a lot of temporary help. When things get busy, they ask these workers if they can work more hours. The answer is usually NO. Why? Because they need to keep their income below a certain level before they start losing their SNAP's benefits.

I work in industry and see similar events. Some of our customers only hire temps. They put them to work for several months to sort of try them out. If the worker shows signs of being a good worker, that's who they hire from the agency instead of hiring from outside.

So who do you think they will choose when they need to hire somebody full time--a person who will only work so many hours because of their SNAP's benefits, or a person that's willing to give them their all anytime they need it?

SNAP benefits phase out gradually as you earn more money. For example a family of 4 (1 adult and 3 kids) living in Texas with an income of $2,000/mo will get $200/mo in SNAP benefits.

Now suppose you have the opportunity to increase your income by $500/mo. Your SNAP benefits will go down $120, but that will be offset by your addition $500 in income. Now suppose you increase your monthly income by $1,000/mo. You would lose all your SNAP benefits, $200 but it will be offset by your addition $1,000 income. The way SNAP benefits are calculated, you will always come out ahead by earning more money.
www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp .

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

 

[80zephyr]

I'm happy that she's contributing to demand. There will always be people who abuse something, it's clear that the point of this thread is to portray the majority of welfare recipients as being like the caller in the video.

She's "contributing to demand?" Bernie Madoff also contributed to demand. Do you defend his activities as well?

Aren't the majority of welfare recipients just like the caller? Do you think they don't know they are sucking off productive people while they do nothing in return?

I responded to your absurd thread with a true statement that is also absurd. When this lady spends, she contributes to demand, it's a simple fact. Every system has people who game it, get over it.
Of course not, the majority work. "Sucking off productive people." Hah, those "productive people" need to realize that the mother receiving food stamps down the street is helping to keep their local walmart up and running.
For Wal-Mart, food stamp cutback adds new challenge
And it's not just walmart that takes a hit. There's absolutely no reason to butcher people's spending power, especially the people who spend most of their income. At a time when we need demand, if anything, we need to be expanding benefits. No one has to pay for it. Deficit spending is a wonderful thing.

Your attempt to claim we benefit from useless ticks on the ass of society like this woman is hysterical. The idea that "demand" is intrinsically good no matter how it is created is an idea that only psychotics could conceive. What if she created the "demand" by robbing liquor stores? Would that also be a benefit to her neighbors? The fact is her "demand" came about by looting money her neighbors had to work hard to earn. She is sucking the life out of her community, and she's raising a litter of menaces to society in the process.

This woman is a vile, despicable piece of shit.

Demand is always good when we have excess supply. Demand drives the economy. Sales create jobs.

Excellent idea. Tell you what, why don't we give the poor a trillion dollars to spur "demand", and if that not enough, give them enough money to make our economy boom.

Right?

Mark

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, I do look at behavior. And there is no reason why taxpayers should be feeding people who are using their cash (that they work for) to feed their multiple pets instead of themselves. It reminds me of the family I threw out of my apartment for not paying their rent a couple of years ago.

While these goodies may help a select few people, it precludes others from bettering themselves because they don't want to lose those benefits.

A friend of mine works at a company that uses a lot of temporary help. When things get busy, they ask these workers if they can work more hours. The answer is usually NO. Why? Because they need to keep their income below a certain level before they start losing their SNAP's benefits.

I work in industry and see similar events. Some of our customers only hire temps. They put them to work for several months to sort of try them out. If the worker shows signs of being a good worker, that's who they hire from the agency instead of hiring from outside.

So who do you think they will choose when they need to hire somebody full time--a person who will only work so many hours because of their SNAP's benefits, or a person that's willing to give them their all anytime they need it?

SNAP benefits phase out gradually as you earn more money. For example a family of 4 (1 adult and 3 kids) living in Texas with an income of $2,000/mo will get $200/mo in SNAP benefits.

Now suppose you have the opportunity to increase your income by $500/mo. Your SNAP benefits will go down $120, but that will be offset by your addition $500 in income. Now suppose you increase your monthly income by $1,000/mo. You would lose all your SNAP benefits, $200 but it will be offset by your addition $1,000 income. The way SNAP benefits are calculated, you will always come out ahead by earning more money.
www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp .

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

 

[Wilbur Right]

When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

Thank you.

 

[Wilbur Right]

I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

There is a God.

Hey Ray, you know those SNAP recipients? Most of them have a job. A slightly above MW job.

Why won't the repubs controlling congress do.what you want and raise the income limit to qualify for SNAP.

Why is it all you want to do is bitch about poor people but never bitch about the republicans controlling congress and their lack kicking people off of SNAP and welfare?

You need to look down on someone don't you Ray. Poor people are all you've got.

 

[Muhammed]

Listening to this bitch is enough to make you vomit:

Several of my rental properties are section 8 housing. And they've been paid off for years. Last year I profited close to six figures from those units alone. So I can relate to her that it feels real good to have the welfare state pay you more than you pay it.

I just don't like to survive off the bare minimum like she does. I have a lot more ambition than that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

There is a God.

Hey Ray, you know those SNAP recipients? Most of them have a job. A slightly above MW job.

Why won't the repubs controlling congress do.what you want and raise the income limit to qualify for SNAP.

Why is it all you want to do is bitch about poor people but never bitch about the republicans controlling congress and their lack kicking people off of SNAP and welfare?

You need to look down on someone don't you Ray. Poor people are all you've got.

Republican Budget Could Kick 11 Million Off Food Stamps

House Republican Budget Whacks Food Stamps And Medicaid

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/u...medicare-and-repeals-the-health-law.html?_r=0

 

[Flopper]

SNAP benefits phase out gradually as you earn more money. For example a family of 4 (1 adult and 3 kids) living in Texas with an income of $2,000/mo will get $200/mo in SNAP benefits.

Now suppose you have the opportunity to increase your income by $500/mo. Your SNAP benefits will go down $120, but that will be offset by your addition $500 in income. Now suppose you increase your monthly income by $1,000/mo. You would lose all your SNAP benefits, $200 but it will be offset by your addition $1,000 income. The way SNAP benefits are calculated, you will always come out ahead by earning more money.
www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp .

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

 

[Flopper]

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

SNAP benefits phase out gradually as you earn more money. For example a family of 4 (1 adult and 3 kids) living in Texas with an income of $2,000/mo will get $200/mo in SNAP benefits.

Now suppose you have the opportunity to increase your income by $500/mo. Your SNAP benefits will go down $120, but that will be offset by your addition $500 in income. Now suppose you increase your monthly income by $1,000/mo. You would lose all your SNAP benefits, $200 but it will be offset by your addition $1,000 income. The way SNAP benefits are calculated, you will always come out ahead by earning more money.
www.ndhealth.gov/dhs/foodstampcalculator.asp .

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

Women who have illegitimate children they can't support should have them taken away and put of for adoptions. That solves to problems with one stone. We don't have another burden on the taxpayers and we don't have a child being raised by an irresponsible parent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is true, but people who use SNAP don't think that way. I'll give you a personal example with one of my tenants:

This was an unmarried couple with two children: one about 12 and the other 3. He worked full time but refused to work an hour over 40; a millennial thing from what I understand. She stayed home supposedly home schooling the children even though she was dumb as all hell herself.

They kept getting more and more behind on rent. When it got to the point of over a month away, I called them to my apartment to discuss the situation.

Since she stayed home with the kids all week long, and he didn't work an hour past 40, I suggested that she get a part-time job on the weekends when he was home so somebody could watch the kids. We have all kinds of no-skill jobs around here, so if she worked two 10 hour days a week, that would not only solve their rent problem, but also other problems they had such as their car falling apart.

She didn't even consider it. Why? Because she was getting $250.00 a month in food stamps and any income would interfere with that benefit. They didn't have the money to get another apartment with security (since I was keeping theirs) so I had to go to court and evict them.

Bottom line: because of those food stamps, they lost their home, he now has a court record for being evicted which will haunt them for many years to come, he could have lost his job after I forced his company to garnish his wages. All for what? $250.00 a month in food stamps.

The food stamps weren't responsible for their bad decision. Turning down increased family income because you will lose some or all your SNAP benefits is always a bad financial decision because the increase in income will more than compensate you for any lose of benefits. All this person had to do was contact the local SNAP office, call the toll free SNAP number, or use one of the online SNAP benefit calculators. They would see immediately that it is to their financially advantage to increase their income.

My son and his family were on SNAP for about 8 months. It paid $300 of their $600 grocery bill each month which certainly helps make ends meet if you have a long period of unemployment. However, SNAP cards certainly don't cover everything. For starters, they don;t cover:
toilet paper, tissues, napkins, paper towels, laundry detergents, dish washing soap, toothpaste, denial floss, soaps of any type such hand soap, bath soap, household cleaning soaps and detergents, tampons, pads, and basically anything you can't eat.

Another problem is you can't use EBT cards in all stores. Until recently you could not use them at COSTCO. Many of the deep discount stores do not accept them nor do most online food merchants. Unlike credit cards, if and EBT card is lose or stolen and used, you're out of luck because there will be no refund.

EBT cards help with food purchases but they're no substitute for having cash in bank.

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

Women who have illegitimate children they can't support should have them taken away and put of for adoptions. That solves to problems with one stone. We don't have another burden on the taxpayers and we don't have a child being raised by an irresponsible parent.

No, they would still be a burden to taxpayers because somebody has to pay for those kids until they get adopted IF they can get adopted. Minority children in particular are hard to get rid of.

But it does take the incentive away to have more children to get more government goodies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well again, I agree with you. But the mindset of those on these programs is that they are working for free because of the loss of benefits.

They know fully well they can get a little further ahead by abandoning the programs and earning their own money. But there's a catch: they have to work.

If the option is available, people will live on less if it means no or less work. For instance: if my former tenant took a part-time job for $8.00 an hour, by the end of the month (using two-ten hour days per week) she would earn about $800.00 before taxes. After taxes, about $650 or so. But if she lost her SNAP's benefits of $250.00, that brings her down to about $400.00 a month.

Sure, that's about $80.00 per week cash. But is it worth giving up all of your weekends for $80.00 a week? Of course not. For $80.00 a week or so, it's so much better to just sit around the house.

Mind you, she also had an Obama phone, but I don't know what those limits are to get one of those. My former tenants also had three cats and a very large dog. The both smoked cigarettes as well as their 12 year old daughter who they supplied tobacco products to.

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This is often the result of training people to accept government handouts.

The woman is a good Dimocrat.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

One question?

Why aren't the Father's of these children paying their "fair share" of their obligation to these children?

A cursory search has child support obligations at or around 40% in some cases.

 

[SwimExpert]

Women who have illegitimate children they can't support should have them taken away and put of for adoptions. That solves to problems with one stone. We don't have another burden on the taxpayers and we don't have a child being raised by an irresponsible parent.

You know, I don't necessarily disagree, in principle. But someone once made a few really good points to me that I'll share with you.

1 - Overabundance of adoption children. There are a whole lot of kids waiting to be adopted already and they languish in the foster system, at taxpayer expense.

2 - Stray cat effect. The best way to deal with stray cat colonies is to capture, spay, and release. If you remove the stray cats from the territory you just create a void that is quickly filled by more stray cats. You fight an unending battle. On the other hand, spay and release controls the colony. The established colony deters migrants from moving in, and if they are all spayed they settle into a steady population. It's possible that a similar effect can happen with welfare children. Even though the parents can't afford any children, the fact that they already have three can still be a deterrent. If you remove those three, they parents are likely to have at least three more children before they again realize they can't afford anymore.

 

[Flopper]

Most of the people that are on social welfare programs for over two years lack the ability to hold down a job for a number of reasons. They go from one part time or temporary job to the next, never making enough to provide for their family.

I do believe that social welfare programs are a disincentive to work even thou they gradually phase out as income increases. However, that doesn't mean I want to see them seriously cut or abolish and here's why.

82% of food stamp benefits go to families with children or the elderly. 70% goes to families with more than one child. Over half of the housing assistance money goes to one parent families. TANF goes mostly to single parents with kids. If you cut these benefits, many of these people will find more work which means less time taking care of the kids. They end up in overcrowd government childcare programs or the streets. Many will find cheaper housing, some moving to streets, again hurting the kids. When these kids go into deep poverty, the cost to society is huge and continues throughout their lives as adults. The money we may save now will come back to haunt us in the future.

Social welfare spending is less about charity and kindness and more about what happens to society if you don't provide these benefits.

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

 

[Flopper]

Women who have illegitimate children they can't support should have them taken away and put of for adoptions. That solves to problems with one stone. We don't have another burden on the taxpayers and we don't have a child being raised by an irresponsible parent.

You know, I don't necessarily disagree, in principle. But someone once made a few really good points to me that I'll share with you.

1 - Overabundance of adoption children. There are a whole lot of kids waiting to be adopted already and they languish in the foster system, at taxpayer expense.

2 - Stray cat effect. The best way to deal with stray cat colonies is to capture, spay, and release. If you remove the stray cats from the territory you just create a void that is quickly filled by more stray cats. You fight an unending battle. On the other hand, spay and release controls the colony. The established colony deters migrants from moving in, and if they are all spayed they settle into a steady population. It's possible that a similar effect can happen with welfare children. Even though the parents can't afford any children, the fact that they already have three can still be a deterrent. If you remove those three, they parents are likely to have at least three more children before they again realize they can't afford anymore.

Anyone that has worked in social welfare knows, removing children from the home should be the last resort after all else fails. People who advocate jerking kids out of homes usually labor under the misconception that poor parents on welfare abuse their children and don't care anything about them. Nothing could be further from the truth. They may not have a job or nice home or live in decent neighborhood but they have their kids and their lives tend to revolve around those kids.

When you pull kids out these homes and throw them into the system the results are often devastating. 1 in 5 will become homeless. 1/2 will not be employed at 24. 71% of the girls will become pregnant before they are 21. Less than 3% will attend college. 1 in 4 will experience PTSD.
Supporting a child in the home is not only cheaper than foster care but it is far more likely to yield adults that are self sufficient. The only reason for pulling kids out of a home is child abuse and cases where the kids can't get the bare necessities at home.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's also rewarding irresponsibility. WTF does anybody have children they can't afford to support? Because the taxpayers will be forced to, that's why.

In my opinion, if you apply for any welfare program, you shouldn't get one dime until you get fixed first. If you are a woman applying for SNAP's or anything else, you won't get a waffle until your tubes are tied. A guy? Same thing. If you have children you are not supporting and want to go on a welfare program, no dice until you get a vasectomy.

I'm so sick of people hiding behind children to suck money from the public. Nobody has to have children. It's an option. I have no children because I made sure I didn't have any.

How can we solve poverty if we promote and reward the procreation of it? The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree. Middle-class working people will generally have middle-class kids when they grow up. Upper-class folks the same thing. Even the wealthy. But when we keep handing poor people money because they have kids they can't afford, they will only have more kids, and that means more poor people when they grow up.

People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 of ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates. People will have children regardless of social welfare or their ability to support them. The great famines in China which were taking the lives of 1 in ever 5 children had no effect on birth rates.In the mid 20th century when 75% of the population of Mexico lived in abject poverty, the average family had 5+ children. Poverty rates have fallen steeply in later 20th century and with it the birth rate. Today the average Mexican family has 2.2 children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children. Unfortunately, the urge to procreate trumps the ability of parent to support their children.

I see, so the only solution is for working people to surrender their money? And when they have more kids that they nor we can stop, just open your wallet wider?

Unlike many years past or in countries that still live in the third world, we now have birth control and it should be used. While we can't force people to use these inexpensive and simple products, we can have a law that says you must be protected from pregnancy if you want to take money out of the pockets of working people. It's just that we don't have enough politicians with guts to try and pass such legislation.

Every time we have a problem with people robbing us blind, it always boils down to the kids.

Cut food stamps drastically..........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want free college...........Oh, but the kids.
We don't want to pump anymore money into public schools...........Oh, but the kids.
HUD shouldn't be providing housing in nice areas or the suburbs........Oh, but the kids.
Public schools should not be providing free breakfast and dinner at school......Oh, but the kids.

Seems to me the problems are always defended by the kids. Solution: quit having them.

Total government spending for 2015 was 6.6 trillion dollars. ,6 trillion was social programs, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Earned Income Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Child Nutritional Program, TANF, Feeding Programs WIC and CSFP, Low Income and Home Energy Assistance.\

In other words, we are spending 9% of total government spending or 3.7% of GNP on these programs. IMHO, considering the wealth of this nation and the social problems that would result without this assistance, we can't afford afford not to support these programs.
Social programs in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sure we can, especially when the are abused so badly.

And I never said eliminate each and every one, but what I am saying is that they are going to people that can otherwise survive just fine without them.

Look up what Maine did with their food stamp program. They too realized it was seriously getting abused, so they created new requirements to get on SNAP's. They gave three choices: have a job working at least 20 hours a week; be enrolled in a vocational program to learn skills for a job; volunteer 20 hours A MONTH. That's is. If you want food stamps, all you had to do is one of these three things.

Guess what? Most of the people dropped out of the program. I guess they weren't that hungry after all. The problem is that these programs became a vote buying tool--particularly for the left. The social workers that operate these programs? They welcome fraud because that fraud is job security.

I would support any program that helps people through tough times, or those that can't otherwise work. But when I see people much younger and healthier than myself sitting home or walking the streets all day instead of working, I have little empathy. That goes double when I see what goes on at my grocery store all the time. If anybody should be home or supported by the taxpayers, it should be me because I do have serious medical issues, but I struggle to go to work each and every day.

75% of food stamp users have children. Adults without children are limited to 3 months every 3 years so it will not have very significant impact on cost of the program.. And no, most people didn't drop out of the program in Maine. Of the 215,000 food stamp recipients, 6500 dropped out. The restrictions that Maine put on singles receiving food stamps only makes qualifying more difficult. It does not insure that only those in real need get the service.

There is no practical way a government agency can determine how much someone needs a social service Criteria based on measurable parameters such as age, number of children, and income are used as qualifying criteria. This type of qualification should insure that most of those receiving the help do needed it. However, there will always be some people who really don't need the service and a few that will cheat in order to get it..

The only way to keep those that don't really need a service from getting it is to eliminate the service.

It's still an impressive figure: According to a report by the Portland Press Herald, Maine had 12,000 non disabled or elderly adults without children on the program. Out of those 12,000, 9000 dropped out. That's 3/4 of the people that were on the program.

And I would be willing to bet that it's about the same with adults who do have children, it's just that they can't go after those slouches without harsh criticism by the MSM.