Meals that are skipped

[Norml]

Good times, bad times, it matters not. That, according to the historical record.

Requirements increase or decrease the number of recipients, compared to citizen population. Not how well the economy is doing.

20% of all food stamp households living on zero gross income, for decades. Twenty, thirty, forty years, a relative constant number. 20% of qualified recipients living on zero gross income, month after month, same households.

Yeah, some of them have a stroke of luck, live on zero net income for a bit. Hey, as long as it does not affects the freebes, no harm no foul.

If 40% of a school's student body are eligible for SNAP, all students get free meals. Not just lunch, but breakfast and a snack as well. All students, regardless of income. Heaven forbid the poor kids feel disadvantaged. When the non-poor kids get free meals, everyone is happier. Uncle Sugar takes care of everyone, rich and poor alike, same freebes
Can everyone say "SOCIALISM".

 

[SoCal]

This is all tripe. You could take 100% of the money from the rich and it wouldn't come close to giving the poor what you think they have a right to.

Like the laughable claim above, Chicken Little cons have a long history of taking their arguments to ridiculous extremes;

Reasonable gun control = They want to take my guns away.
Legal abortion = They're murdering children.
Accepting persecuted refugees = Liberals want open boarders.
Civil Rights Act = Southern civilization will be degraded if blacks exercise their right to vote.
Etc., etc., etc...

 

[Court Jester]

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

I'm in favor of this and the reason why is because food stamps/EBT has been so mismanaged and abused for decades that it isn't providing "nutritious meals" anyway. Since fast places take EBT one cannot argue this is nutritious food.

At least WIC demands the food be specifically for nutrition and doesn't just leave it up to the person on the program to decide that they will spend this taxpayer supported welfare allowance on donuts and cheeseburgers.

Given the fact that most of these people aren't working they ought to have time to cook a nutritious meal for themselves if they are given the ingredients. Therefore I'm all for having them line up and receive bags of rice, dry beans, fresh chicken or beef, and raw vegetables along with a cook book. But going to Jack in the Box.... no way!!!

 

[mike2810]

Reactionaryism, where the rich and their secretaries pay the same tax rate and continue clinging to their stereotype of welfare recipients.

I do not believe anywhere near the majority of welfare recipients would be living on a shoestring if they didn't have to. I don't think a wealthy reactionary who'll work for Don, who suppresses science and is completely out of touch with the inner-city, deciding who's able-bodied enough to hold a job. And is there any question of who ordered this and why (Numnuts to make The Cult happy (political reasons))?

Perdue says, "...the administration thinks these people should be able to get jobs, especially now that the nation's unemployment rate is the lowest it has been in years...."

But with an unemployment rate of 3.7 are employers actually still looking for employees?

"...economists suggest as the U.S. unemployment rate gets below 5%, the economy is very close to or at full capacity. So at 3.6%, one could argue the level of unemployment is too low, and the U.S. economy is becoming inefficient..."

Lots of Job Hunting, but No Job, Despite Low Unemployment

The vast majority of the very rich do not give back anywhere near enough to the country they earn their wealth in. A wealth tax is required to repair and/or maintain our railroads, highways, bridges and other infrastructure they use and need to become rich, to say nothing of Americans on the borderline.

If they don't like it, I suggest they move to a Western European county where they pay real taxes, or maybe they'd be happier moving to Russia and buying as much security and freedom as they can afford...

So you want a wealth tax. Earlier in the thread you want the rich to pay more for food. Not its infrastructure. Some want the rich to pay for health care.
How far do you think the "rich tax" will go? I highly doubt it can pay for all these programs.

Correct me if I am wrong , isn't it true that about 44% of the people in the US pay no federal income tax? That means 56% of us are funding the federal government.

In 2018 the Federal Govt revenue came from 51% from income tax, 35% payroll tax, 6% Corporate Income , 8% Excise/estate/misc other taxes.
Policy Basics: Where Do Federal Tax Revenues Come From? | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In your opinion, what is "rich" and what percentage should they be paying?

 

[Paradoxical]

Like the laughable claim above, Chicken Little cons have a long history of taking their arguments to ridiculous extremes;

Reasonable gun control = They want to take my guns away.
Legal abortion = They're murdering children.
Accepting persecuted refugees = Liberals want open boarders.
Civil Rights Act = Southern civilization will be degraded if blacks exercise their right to vote.
Etc., etc., etc...

No refutation of my argument. I have grown to expect nothing less from you though.

 

[SoCal]

20% of all food stamp households have zero gross income, month after month, year after year. Not a penny from any source.

Another 18-20% live on zero net income. After program allowed deductions (which does not include car payments or credit card payments), the household has zero net income.

So about 40% of all SNAP recipients receive maximum allowed benefits, because they are living on zero (net) income.
This does not include those living on $12 to $100 per month. All considered, over half of all food stamp households are living on less than $100 per month.

Only a very naive person would believe they do this against their will.

The majority of SNAP participants do work and half of the recipients are children. For a family of three, the maximum SNAP payment is $509. That works out to $5.70 a day for each member, hardly a windfall. SNAP sets out to help alleviate hunger in children and it does.

I was unable to verify the statistics you site, if you post a link to some hard data from a major source backing up your claims, I'll do likewise...

 

[Lisa]

Good times, bad times, it matters not. That, according to the historical record.

Requirements increase or decrease the number of recipients, compared to citizen population. Not how well the economy is doing.

20% of all food stamp households living on zero gross income, for decades. Twenty, thirty, forty years, a relative constant number. 20% of qualified recipients living on zero gross income, month after month, same households.

Yeah, some of them have a stroke of luck, live on zero net income for a bit. Hey, as long as it does not affects the freebies, no harm no foul.

If 40% of a school's student body are eligible for SNAP, all students get free meals. Not just lunch, but breakfast and a snack as well. All students, regardless of income. Heaven forbid the poor kids feel disadvantaged. When the non-poor kids get free meals, everyone is happier. Uncle Sugar takes care of everyone, rich and poor alike, same freebies
Can everyone say "SOCIALISM".

Why do you want to punish poor children because they are poor? Do you see the long term problems that sets up?

What are your religious beliefs?

 

[SoCal]

1.8% is not a huge cut and it is targeted toward people on time-limit waivers who may not otherwise be in areas in which the waivers were originally intended.

We disagree about how to portray the cut. Percentage wise it doesn't sound very drastic, but many would say that cutting off 3 million people is damn huge. Many others are not aware that over 40% of the recipients are kids...

 

[SoCal]

Obama added 11 million. And that's the problem. Food stamps were never intended to be a way of life. But once a government program is started it never goes away and only grows.

Surely out of 11 million there must be some that can survive without food stamps.

I know some take advantage of the program, it's the same with most other large government programs, including Defence Department contractors. The money lost to SS fraud is much worst, but it's much more difficult to cut off SS benefits. There're too many old white guys on it for that to happen. Increasing part time jobs and decreasing full time jobs with their benefits might increase a corporation's profits, but it's forcing millions onto welfare. So who picks up the slack? American taxpayers end up subsidizing our wealthiest families and largest corporations;

It’s Time to Get Billionaires Off of Welfare
"...The Walton family of Walmart and many other billionaire-owned large and profitable corporations also get richer because of taxpayer support for their low-paid employees..."

 

[ocean515]

Maybe you should read Dwight Eisenhower's famous Cross of Iron speech. He was also a rational Republican. We have a responsibility to care for others who are less fortunate instead of calling them loafers and takers.



Dwight D. Eisenhower Cross of Iron Speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors

I never said we shouldn't care for others.

I've said we should care for those who need it, and require those who don't, to get busy.

The result will be someone with an uplifting sense of accomplishment, who will go forward with dignity, no longer saddled by the fear they must be subservient to someone, or some group, who holds the key to their survival over their heads.

 

[Norml]

Why do you want to punish poor children because they are poor? Do you see the long term problems that sets up?

What are your religious beliefs?

Children?
Punish children?
I suggested no such thing.

Children of healthy adults who make no attempts to provide for their needs are at risk.
Those parents are not even required to file for child support against absent parents in all but a few states. No federal regulations require filing for support for SNAP, and every other welfare program except TANF.
It seems to me that those who accept this lack of parental support are punishing the children. If the government has the well-being of the children as an imperative, filing for child support should be a requirement, especially for needy parents who refuse to seek or retain employment.

In many states two healthy adults are exempted from any work component if there is one healthy nine year old child. Two healthy adults, zero gross income, and a child. When they ask the taxpayers to feed all of them, no problem. No expectations anyone should seek employment.
It seems to me this is punishing the children, or putting them at risk, as a minimum.
The government condones healthy parents who make no effort to provide for the needs of children.
Parents with zero income would be eligible for TANF cash assistance, but refuse to apply, primarily because of work requirements or child support requirements. They choose to live on zero income food stamps. They refuse income that would benefit the children. It seems to me this is punishing the children.

On and on it goes. Healthy parents who make no attempt to provide the needs of their dependents are given handouts.
Those of us who believe healthy adults should have some responsibility for providing their needs, and those of their dependents, are viewed as wanting to punish the children.

We want those who have a legal responsibility for their children, to provide for those children.
Who, in heaven's name, would consider that punishment?
A Satanist?

 

[Lisa]

I know some take advantage of the program, it's the same with most other large government programs, including Defence Department contractors. The money lost to SS fraud is much worst, but it's much more difficult to cut off SS benefits. There're too many old white guys on it for that to happen. Increasing part-time jobs and decreasing full-time jobs with their benefits might increase a corporation's profits, but it's forcing millions onto welfare. So who picks up the slack? American taxpayers end up subsidizing our wealthiest families and largest corporations;

It’s Time to Get Billionaires Off of Welfare
"...The Walton family of Walmart and many other billionaire-owned large and profitable corporations also get richer because of taxpayer support for their low-paid employees..."

The Walton, Jeff Bezos, fast food and other corporations are all included in that list.

Exactly. It is long past time for the government to force employers to pay a living wage to their employees because when they dont the American citizens are forced to make up the difference is social safety net costs. The minimum wage was created not for teenagers but as a way to guarantee anyone who worked full time to afford a home and to live a reasonable quality of life.

“No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)



“By living wages, I mean more than a bare subsistence level — I mean the wages of a decent living.” (1933, Statement on National Industrial Recovery Act)

 

[Drawdown]

We disagree about how to portray the cut. Percentage wise it doesn't sound very drastic, but many would say that cutting off 3 million people is damn huge. Many others are not aware that over 40% of the recipients are kids...

View attachment 67269455

But you are trying to portray the cut by implication as affecting kids. Mu understanding is that the cuts would not touch them directly as what I read was that it would affect 18-49 year olds in areas with low unemployment in which the states have inappropriately made eligible for extended benefits beyond the periods normally allowed i.e. long-term. Perhaps the at-risk populations like the disabled will be hit, but certainly not kids.

 

[Lisa]

Children?
Punish children?
I suggested no such thing.

Children of healthy adults who make no attempts to provide for their needs are at risk.
Those parents are not even required to file for child support against absent parents in all but a few states. No federal regulations require filing for support for SNAP, and every other welfare program except TANF.
It seems to me that those who accept this lack of parental support are punishing the children. If the government has the well-being of the children as an imperative, filing for child support should be a requirement, especially for needy parents who refuse to seek or retain employment.

In many states two healthy adults are exempted from any work component if there is one healthy nine-year-old child. Two healthy adults, zero gross income, and a child. When they ask the taxpayers to feed all of them, no problem. No expectations anyone should seek employment.
It seems to me this is punishing the children, or putting them at risk, as a minimum.
The government condones healthy parents who make no effort to provide for the needs of children.
Parents with zero income would be eligible for TANF cash assistance, but refuse to apply, primarily because of work requirements or child support requirements. They choose to live on zero income food stamps. They refuse income that would benefit the children. It seems to me this is punishing the children.

On and on it goes. Healthy parents who do not attempt to provide the needs of their dependents are given handouts.
Those of us who believe healthy adults should have some responsibility for providing their needs, and those of their dependents, are viewed as wanting to punish the children.

We want those who have a legal responsibility for their children, to provide for those children.
Who, in heaven's name, would consider that punishment?
A Satanist?

You did seek to punish poor children. This phrase is proof of that.

Heaven forbid the poor kids feel disadvantaged.

 

[Lisa]

I never said we shouldn't care for others.

I've said we should care for those who need it, and require those who don't, to get busy.

The result will be someone with an uplifting sense of accomplishment, who will go forward with dignity, no longer saddled by the fear they must be subservient to someone, or some group, who holds the key to their survival over their heads.

Is this the current conservative or libertarian talking point, like the claim of some poor black people being held in liberal slavery because they receive benefits? Are they supposed to feel better about themselves being holmess, sick and hungry as being free on the street on $8.00 a hour job than having a roof over themselves and food on the table because they get safety net befits?

 

[JustHanging]

Trump administration moves to remove 700,000 people from food stamps. “For those impacted it will mean less nutritious meals, or meals that are skipped altogether”

Another good example of why we need a wealth tax. Someone has to pay for the Repub corporate tax cut, why not the huddled masses?

And just in time for Christmas!

Being so greedy you take from hungry children is pure Evangelical Christian values.


Look at Trump, he's a billionaire and he's so greedy he goes after the kids that have cancer:

How Donald Trump Shifted Kids-Cancer Charity Money Into His Business - Forbes

And Evangelicals can't support him enough, they love this ****.


As an atheist, I see the silver lining. This is just going to be one more reason young people decide to leave Christianity.

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace | Pew Research Center

 

[Simpletruther]

I know some take advantage of the program, it's the same with most other large government programs, including Defence Department contractors. The money lost to SS fraud is much worst, but it's much more difficult to cut off SS benefits. There're too many old white guys on it for that to happen. Increasing part time jobs and decreasing full time jobs with their benefits might increase a corporation's profits, but it's forcing millions onto welfare. So who picks up the slack? American taxpayers end up subsidizing our wealthiest families and largest corporations;

It’s Time to Get Billionaires Off of Welfare
"...The Walton family of Walmart and many other billionaire-owned large and profitable corporations also get richer because of taxpayer support for their low-paid employees..."

Claiming the act of subsidizing poor people is really subsidizing the wealthiest families doesn’t make it reality. Up is down.

 

[JustHanging]

Envy is a terrible poison to let flow through one's soul.

Agreed. And sadly that, along with cowardice, is what Trump thinks his base is largely made of.

And I think Trump knows his base. Do you?

 

[JustHanging]

Like the laughable claim above, Chicken Little cons have a long history of taking their arguments to ridiculous extremes;

Reasonable gun control = They want to take my guns away.
Legal abortion = They're murdering children.
Accepting persecuted refugees = Liberals want open boarders.
Civil Rights Act = Southern civilization will be degraded if blacks exercise their right to vote.
Etc., etc., etc...

These are people who literally want to take the food from hungry children. That's what they are arguing for in this very thread.

And you think they'll be too ashamed to lie about those things as well?

 

[Norml]

The majority of SNAP participants do work and half of the recipients are children. For a family of three, the maximum SNAP payment is $509. That works out to $5.70 a day for each member, hardly a windfall. SNAP sets out to help alleviate hunger in children and it does.

I was unable to verify the statistics you site, if you post a link to some hard data from a major source backing up your claims, I'll do likewise...

I know how they define working food stamp recipients.
If they were employed for 20 hours per week at minimum wage during the 6 months before they applied for food stamps, or the six months after their food stamps were closed, they are "employed". They do not have to be employed while they are receiving benefits, to be considered an employed recipient.

38-40% of all households have zero adjusted income. No net income. More standard deductions than income.
Households with two healthy adults, and one works 20 hours per week, for one month of the year, is a "working food stamp household". Annual income of less than $1000 is enough to classify it as "working", for full the calendar year.

Food stamps are the tip of the iceberg. It does not change include school meals, free Medicaid, often free housing, paid utilities with energy assistance. How do we suppose nearly 20 million people live on zero net income. Someone else provides their needs. That would be the taxpayers.

 

[Paradoxical]

These are people who literally want to take the food from hungry children. That's what they are arguing for in this very thread.

And you think they'll be too ashamed to lie about those things as well?

Why should I be responsible when others aren't? This "children go hungry" is a lie anyway. Ask a kid if he's hungry in an average family and you'll get a "YES". Food stamps promote laziness and an entitlement mentality. Trump is trying to wean people off the teat of government.

 

[Norml]

You did seek to punish poor children. This phrase is proof of that.

What?

Being against giving wealthy (or non-poor) students free meals, is punishing the poor children?
That is a strange opinion.

 

[ocean515]

Is this the current conservative or libertarian talking point, like the claim of some poor black people being held in liberal slavery because they receive benefits? Are they supposed to feel better about themselves being holmess, sick and hungry as being free on the street on $8.00 a hour job than having a roof over themselves and food on the table because they get safety net befits?

Why do you waste so much time on appeals to emotion bull****?

Why do you think so poorly about Blacks?

How about sticking with reality?

It makes a discussion possible.

 

[ocean515]

Agreed. And sadly that, along with cowardice, is what Trump thinks his base is largely made of.

And I think Trump knows his base. Do you?

There is nothing in the liberal world to be envious of, so why would you think your spin could fly?

 

[Moonglow]

The progressives are parasites.

Damn those progressive corporate farmers getting 30 billion this year alone..