Food Stamps: Repub bill to require more people to work

[JEDI]

http://money.cnn.com/2018/04/20/news/economy/food-stamps-jobs/index.html

Currently:
able-bodied adults ages 18 to 49 who don't have minor children must work or enroll in a training program for 20 hours a week to receive benefits for more than three months every three years.
About 3.5 million of the roughly 41 million people who receive food stamps are subject to this provision.

new GOP bill:
- require those in their 50s to have jobs or enroll in training
- it would extend the mandate to parents with school-age children

This could double the number of people subject to work requirements, according to the Congressional Budget Office.


I...agree with the GOP on this.

 

[Moonbeam]

I support it too. Enough hungry people and the Republican party will get pitchforked to death.

 

[ElFenix]

welfare work requirements haven't done anything to get people out of poverty. first season of uncertain hour podcast covered the change in cash welfare work requirements back in the 90s and the only thing it did was put so many hoops in front of cash welfare that people stopped jumping through them.

 

[JEDI]

welfare work requirements haven't done anything to get people out of poverty. first season of uncertain hour podcast covered the change in cash welfare work requirements back in the 90s and the only thing it did was put so many hoops in front of cash welfare that people stopped jumping through them.

so what did these people do then to get $ for food??

 

[glenn1]

so what did these people do then to get $ for food??

So evidently they weren’t needy enough for welfare if some “hoops” presented enough deterrent for them. I’d be willing to jump through lots of hoops to avoid starving to death, evidently progressives think people do willingly starve rather than do extra work to get benefits.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Teach a man to fish...

 

[ElFenix]

so what did these people do then to get $ for food??

most people who were on cash welfare were between jobs even before the changes. some would do long-course (read: stuff that would take a year+) education/training while on cash welfare prior to the change. after the change you couldn't do that sort of job training anymore. you could only do stuff that could be completed fairly quickly, like cosmetology. so for the most part people kept doing the same crappy jobs that they really have no realistic way of ever getting ahead in and keep them flirting with the poverty line and a return to cash welfare.

i call it a "hoops" but it's really a full time effort of doing things to qualify for cash welfare.

Teach a man to fish...

the cash welfare reforms largely eliminated that part of it.

 

[Jhhnn]

So evidently they weren’t needy enough for welfare if some “hoops” presented enough deterrent for them. I’d be willing to jump through lots of hoops to avoid starving to death, evidently progressives think people do willingly starve rather than do extra work to get benefits.

Are there no prisons?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Teach a man to fish...

And he will still need to a be able to afford a fishing license and park entrance fee.

 

[Pick2]

They need to drug test them once a year , If positive , kick them off it.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

They need to drug test them once a year , If positive , kick them off it.

Yeah no. Just no.

 

[Jhhnn]

They need to drug test them once a year , If positive , kick them off it.

Drug test everybody everyday. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

They need to drug test them once a year , If positive , kick them off it.

Already been tried and failed. Florida found the cost of drug testing exceeded the amount of denied benefits.

IIRC studies found welfare recipients are less likely to use drugs than most other segments of the population.

 

[umbrella39]

They need to drug test them once a year , If positive , kick them off it.

Start with EVERY sitting member on every State senate and house then move on to DC...

 

[compuwiz1]

It's easier to adjust to the hardship of earning a poor living, than to the hardship of earning a better one. Able bodied people need to be caused to produce something on their own, not enabled to be lazy. I don't mean people who are not able to work, for whatever reason.

 

[JEDI]

It's easier to adjust to the hardship of earning a poor living, than to the hardship of earning a better one.

don't understand?

 

[MomentsofSanity]

don't understand?

Loose translation. Everyone using social assistance is a lazy freeloader who can’t be bothered to actually work for anything.

 

[Zorba]

What happens when there aren't enough jobs to go around?

Taking food stamps away from families with kids will just create much larger problems, especially when the same people want to restrict access to birth control.

 

[compuwiz1]

Loose translation. Everyone using social assistance is a lazy freeloader who can’t be bothered to actually work for anything.

You didn't read my post very well. I didn't say "everyone". I excluded people who are not able to work, due to no fault of their own, like health issues, disabilities, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

What happens when there aren't enough jobs to go around?

then we didn't cut taxes on job creators enough!

 

[Jhhnn]

It's easier to adjust to the hardship of earning a poor living, than to the hardship of earning a better one. Able bodied people need to be caused to produce something on their own, not enabled to be lazy. I don't mean people who are not able to work, for whatever reason.

Having gone in both directions more than once in my life I have to say you're out of your mind. Making more money never inconvenienced me in the slightest.

 

[Jaskalas]

Work is on the verge of becoming scarce. We must drop those requirements. Drop all requirements and deploy Basic Income.

 

[Jaskalas]

Having gone in both directions more than once in my life I have to say you're out of your mind. Making more money never inconvenienced me in the slightest.

That notion is in reference to the loss of benefits from becoming employed. Our current system encourages the poorest to remain so.

 

[sandorski]

Don't incentivize achieving more, punish having need.

 

[Jhhnn]

That notion is in reference to the loss of benefits from becoming employed. Our current system encourages the poorest to remain so.

Which just means we need to increase benefits for working people to compensate for the suffered loss of national income share. It's not like the financial elite will give that up willingly, either, through their "free market" way of doing things. If we want it we'll have to find a different way to get it.

Conservatives are totally hung up in a perverted self righteous version of the Puritan work ethic. "Those who do not work shall not eat" was a necessary thing, given their circumstances & the state of their primitive technology. They were barely making it at all.You could bet that the leadership had work for everybody, too, given the patriarchal authoritarianism of their headsets.

As individuals, we have decreasing leverage against the greed of the ownership class. They don't need us to work the way they once did. Better Tech makes that inevitable. The Rust Belt is a manifestation of that.

If we want a bigger piece of the pie we'll have to take it as taxes. Well, unless somebody has a better idea than rugged individualism, boot straps, trickle down & freedumb.