Thousands dropped from food stamps due to work requirements

[james_1957]

Thousands of Georgians have lost their food stamps after the state gave them an ultimatum: Get a job or lose your benefits.

Is that good news or bad news? Depends who you talk to. Placing work requirements on food stamps has proven controversial across the country, with opinions often divided along political lines.

Georgia has been rolling out work requirements for food stamp recipients for over a year. The latest round affected some 12,000 people in 21 counties, several in metro Atlanta, who are considered able-bodied without children.

When the April 1 deadline came around for them to find work, more than half — 7,251 — were dropped from the program, according to state figures released this week. Essentially, the number of recipients spiraled down from 11,779 to 4,528, or a drop of 62 percent.

Views on the work mandate vary widely, and intensely. People on the political right see the requirement as a nudge to those who languish on public benefits. But those on the left believe many people who the state deems able-bodied really cannot hold a job due to physical or mental limitations. And they worry these people will suffer without the assistance.

State officials say they plan to expand the work requirements to all 159 counties by 2019, with another 60 coming on board next year.

http://www.myajc.com/news/breaking-...due-work-requirements/nAcoTvoPq4LBO0u42Z8CTP/

 

[Libsam]

I found this in another article:

Those who receive benefits must work at least 20 hours a week, be enrolled in state-approved job training, or volunteer for a state-approved non-profit or charity.

When I googled for more articles on this I noticed none of the lefty media outlets were writing about this. I guess it can't be spun in their favor.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I found this in another article:

Those who receive benefits must work at least 20 hours a week, be enrolled in state-approved job training, or volunteer for a state-approved non-profit or charity.

Seems kind of silly to require any of those, especially the last, as a condition for food stamps.

 

[HisArpy]

Seems kind of silly to require any of those, especially the last, as a condition for food stamps.

Wait, I don't get this.

Are you saying that if someone is below a certain poverty level, they shouldn't be allowed to work to continue to receive benefits? Forced poverty in favor of benefits?

Or

Are you saying that if someone works but is below the poverty threshold they shouldn't get benefits? Still poverty only this time without benefits?

Or

Are you saying that if someone chooses to not work at all, they should just get the benefits regardless? Laziness looking for a handout?

I'm not exactly in favor of this because it's too easy to abuse those who really need the help. But I can see the reasoning behind it.

 

[AngeloMichael]

And if they raised taxes on the wealthy one super rich tax payer could probably have footed the entire food stamp program for Atlanta.

And it's not just about giving someone a fish for a day, it's about efficiency. Higher taxes on the wealthy can be beneficial in many areas. Changing the food stamp program takes cost for debate in government, teaching employees the new system, employees using the time they're being paid for to implement the new system, havinf to deprogram/reprogram the systems that use food stamps, and dealing with questions and complaints from citizens.

Plus, one wealthy person can handle a tax cut. With food stamps, maybe you're letting some lazy people or scammers get a break, but what about the breaks rich people get just because they can hire people who know how to manipulate the law to pay the least amount into the system? While there may be people who really need the program but for some reason, government snafu or something, they get judged unworthy. It's making it harder on people that many of who really can't handle it.

It's just easier to bully the poor and kiss the asses of the rich, and for some reason people see that as pulling oneself up by their bootstraps philosophy and such.

 

[HisArpy]

And if they raised taxes on the wealthy one super rich tax payer could probably have footed the entire food stamp program for Atlanta.

And it's not just about giving someone a fish for a day, it's about efficiency. Higher taxes on the wealthy can be beneficial in many areas. Changing the food stamp program takes cost for debate in government, teaching employees the new system, employees using the time they're being paid for to implement the new system, havinf to deprogram/reprogram the systems that use food stamps, and dealing with questions and complaints from citizens.

Plus, one wealthy person can handle a tax cut. With food stamps, maybe you're letting some lazy people or scammers get a break, but what about the breaks rich people get just because they can hire people who know how to manipulate the law to pay the least amount into the system? While there may be people who really need the program but for some reason, government snafu or something, they get judged unworthy. It's making it harder on people that many of who really can't handle it.

It's just easier to bully the poor and kiss the asses of the rich, and for some reason people see that as pulling oneself up by their bootstraps philosophy and such.

I'm sorry, did you actually say anything intelligent in this post?

You do realize that the top 10% pay over 50% of the taxes don't you? And, that their tax rate has remained steady(ish) over the last 30 years while YOU got tax breaks which lowered your tax rates.

http://politisane.tumblr.com/post/16512850705/whos-really-not-paying-their-fair-share

I guess it's just so much easier to blame the rich for having stuff you'd like to have. I mean it's hard to get off your ass and go earn the money to buy that stuff, right? Much easier to STEAL IT and blame the victim (the rich guy) for forcing you to resorting to the theft.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Wait, I don't get this.

Are you saying that if someone is below a certain poverty level, they shouldn't be allowed to work to continue to receive benefits? Forced poverty in favor of benefits?

Or

Are you saying that if someone works but is below the poverty threshold they shouldn't get benefits? Still poverty only this time without benefits?

Or

Are you saying that if someone chooses to not work at all, they should just get the benefits regardless? Laziness looking for a handout?

I'm not exactly in favor of this because it's too easy to abuse those who really need the help. But I can see the reasoning behind it.

I am saying those out of work should get food stamps and that alone should be enough to qualify. It is almost never a matter of "choosing" nor "laziness." Why is this is even an issue, anyway? What we think of as "welfare" was mostly abolished in 1996; no one can now complain of a large population of government dependents other than retirees, to the extent that ever existed in the first place, and this is easily a rich enough society to support a small population of such.

 

[james_1957]

I found this in another article:

Those who receive benefits must work at least 20 hours a week, be enrolled in state-approved job training, or volunteer for a state-approved non-profit or charity.

When I googled for more articles on this I noticed none of the lefty media outlets were writing about this. I guess it can't be spun in their favor.

The thousands that disappeared were obviously not interested in working.

No Lefty media coverage is not surprising. You're absolutely correct about the Left not being able to spin it in their favor. If this program works in Georgia, it will work in every state.

I'm looking forward to massive entitlement reform. Every single program needs to be reviewed, every single recipient needs to be qualified to receive government assistance.

 

[HisArpy]

I am saying those out of work should get food stamps and that alone should be enough to qualify. It is almost never a matter of "choosing" nor "laziness." Why is this is even an issue, anyway? What we think of as "welfare" was mostly abolished in 1996; no one can now complain of a large population of government dependents other than retirees, to the extent that ever existed in the first place, and this is easily a rich enough society to support a small population of such.

Ah, I understand now. Personally I believe the qualifier should be income level AND ability to work, not whether someone is working or not.

If you can work, then you should. No free rides. However, if your income from employment doesn't make it so you're above the minimum threshold, then you should still get the assistance.

If you can't work, then you should qualify as disabled. Which is a different program with different requirements, being required to work is not one of them.

If you CAN work but don't, then g'bye.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Ah, I understand now. Personally I believe the qualifier should be income level AND ability to work, not whether someone is working or not.

If you can work, then you should. No free rides. However, if your income from employment doesn't make it so you're above the minimum threshold, then you should still get the assistance.

If you can't work, then you should qualify as disabled. Which is a different program with different requirements, being required to work is not one of them.

If you CAN work but don't, then g'bye.

N.B.: If you have the physical and mental ability to work, that does not necessarily mean you can work, that depends on the job market and your skillsets. If you are out of work for that reason, I see no reason to require you to volunteer for charity just to qualify for food stamps; charities do not appear to be lacking for volunteers, and it smacks of a repellent assumption that moochers should be kept busy somehow just for moralistic reasons.

 

[jaF0]

It cannot be stressed enough ... 'able bodied' does NOT mean able to work.

Also, many who are on the program are already working and unable to make ends meet.

The notion behind requiring volunteering is the same as job training. It's supposed to help you become more employable by teaching some skills. It's also seen as a way to give back to the community in exchange for the benefits.

In my state, many of the conditions are waived in the more agricultural counties where there are few paying jobs.


In a place like Atlanta, I have to wonder how many more people will be driven to theft, shoplifting food or dealing drugs; or how many will fall into ailing health from malnutrition.

 

[Rightguide]

In an attempt to build an eternal dependent class that would always vote Democrat, the first thing the communist Barack Obama did was drop the Clinton era work requirement for welfare. He then advocated raising the Minimum Wage to a point that would keep all those part time itinerants from ever being employed, thus locking them into a permanent constituency of big government. He knew it couldn't last forever but knew other people's money would last at least until he was safely out of office.

 

[HisArpy]

I can see your point. And I agree with it, mostly.


On the other hand, what would someone do if they were out of work because of the reasons you give AND there was no such thing as assistance?

I believe that most would get off their ass and go find some work regardless of whether it's within their training or skills or not. They'd dig ditches if they had to. They'd fix cars in the driveway. Cut hair in the kitchen. Or go start their own business and try to beat the competition that refused to recognize their abilities when they were let go.

I know this. I did it.

 

[Rightguide]

I can see your point. And I agree with it, mostly.


On the other hand, what would someone do if they were out of work because of the reasons you give AND there was no such thing as assistance?

I believe that most would get off their ass and go find some work regardless of whether it's within their training or skills or not. They'd dig ditches if they had to. They'd fix cars in the driveway. Cut hair in the kitchen. Or go start their own business and try to beat the competition that refused to recognize their abilities when they were let go.

I know this. I did it.

Me too but then it wasn't against the law to employ people making less than $15 an hour.

 

[lovecraft68]

And of course the hyenas of the right think this is hilarious because they think everyone on assistance is a welfare leech.

When in reality many are people who used to work, but there are no longer any jobs. People who used to own homes, people with families they can no longer support. But hey, that's fucking hilarious isn't it Right guide and James? Fucking hilarious.

Your disgusting sack of filth lying president took votes from these people by lying and saying he would get them jobs, now its get jobs or lose food for your kids

ha ha ha ha so fucking funny

The only thing more disgusting than trump is his cackling little minions like the two despicable little fuck sticks who run around the board sucking trumps ass every time he farts and mocking people's misfortunes.

I live in Warwick RI either of you or any of your kind can feel free to send me a message if you're anywhere in my area for a face to face.

I've always wanted to know what a walking talking piece of malicious cowardly shit actually looks like.

 

[jaF0]

I believe that most would get off their ass and go find some work regardless of whether it's within their training or skills or not. They'd dig ditches if they had to. They'd fix cars in the driveway. Cut hair in the kitchen. Or go start their own business and try to beat the competition that refused to recognize their abilities when they were let go.

They'd sell drugs. Or themselves. Or both.

It's illegal in many places to cut hair in your kitchen or fix cars in your driveway. More right wing laws to extract licensing or permit fees and to protect chain businesses who donate to campaigns.

 

[lovecraft68]

I can see your point. And I agree with it, mostly.


On the other hand, what would someone do if they were out of work because of the reasons you give AND there was no such thing as assistance?

I believe that most would get off their ass and go find some work regardless of whether it's within their training or skills or not. They'd dig ditches if they had to. They'd fix cars in the driveway. Cut hair in the kitchen. Or go start their own business and try to beat the competition that refused to recognize their abilities when they were let go.

I know this. I did it.

You obviously haven't looked for work lately have you?

I think what you should do is stop judging people and acting like everything is easy out there.

Then go to hell with James and Rightguide and watch them lick each other's nuts

 

[KingOrfeo]

In an attempt to build an eternal dependent class that would always vote Democrat . . .

 

[KingOrfeo]

I can see your point. And I agree with it, mostly.


On the other hand, what would someone do if they were out of work because of the reasons you give AND there was no such thing as assistance?

Some would find some work paying just barely enough to feed them -- which is a thing a society as rich as ours has no business tolerating ever -- and some would not find such work and would starve unless private charity fed them, and some would turn to crime.

 

[handysr]

And if they raised taxes on the wealthy one super rich tax payer could probably have footed the entire food stamp program for Atlanta.

Plus, one wealthy person can handle a tax cut.

No. Just fucking no. What right do you have to tell someone else they must give away their wealth so you feel better? I'm not rich, but I help out in various ways to help those less fortunate. You know, by my own free will. I don't ask for praise, a volunteer t-shirt, or adoring fans. I don't care if nobody knows, but I know the recipients are thankful, and that's enough. But to be forced by law to have my property taken against my will? No, fuck off.

There are tons of people who can work, but won't, so why should they be freeloaders on my dime? This story is about people with no kids and physically able to work, and people are still upset that the big meanie government is taking away their freebies. This isn't taking food away from babies or the mentally/physically challenged, it's from those who can provide for themselves but won't.

I can't fathom the amount of laziness and the lack of self-respect needed to maintain that life.

 

[KingOrfeo]

No. Just fucking no. What right do you have to tell someone else they must give away their wealth so you feel better?

Society has a right to tax the rich just so they will be less rich. The very existence of the superrich is dangerous to society and to democracy; there ought to be some cap on net worth.

 

[handysr]

The funny thing is that I've seen several news stories over the years where people are complaining about changes to immigration policies. They say that keeping illegal Latinos out of the US is going to make food prices skyrocket because of the lack of cheap workers. There is some merit to that argument, but it reminds me of this topic.

First ones I found:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/on-u-s-farms-fewer-hands-for-the-harvest-1439371802
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700176398/Colo-corn-farmer-has-trouble-finding-US-workers.html

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/ar...ge/Articles/Template-Main&oref=www.google.com

This is still the case, and despite the unemployment levels and offering good pay, they can't keep workers in the field. WTF?!? There are good jobs available. You don't need a high-tech skill, don't need people skills, and no college degree needed. Just show up, pick stuff to put in a basket, and go home.

Ohhhhh, poor babies. It's "too hard" to actually walk under a hot sun and pick food. Yeah, it's easier to stay in a crappy apartment, drink cheap beer, and play on the internet. Gotcha.

 

[handysr]

Society has a right to tax the rich just so they will be less rich. The very existence of the superrich is dangerous to society and to democracy; there ought to be some cap on net worth.

What gives society that right? What's the cut-off? There's always going to be "the richest person" no matter how much you cap income. Why should your vote to take my money count more than my vote to keep it.

The existence of crazy people are dangerous to society, as are druggies, alcoholics, and thieves. And sharks too, sharks hurt people. We sure let plenty of them live in our society.

If I made $1 million a year, right at the imaginary cutoff, what reason would I have to try and improve myself? Honestly I'd probably work LESS hard so I can enjoy my cash since I keep a bigger percent of it. If I made $100k/yr, I might put out a little more effort, but not much because of diminishing returns. I would know that I was working harder so some lazy oaf didn't have to.

Why would I even want to try to make a living for myself? I could be like "everyone else" on the lower side of the income level and get everything for free. I would get paid to breathe.

No, nobody has the right to take my hard-earned money just because my bank account has more numbers in it.

 

[Rightguide]

And of course the hyenas of the right think this is hilarious because they think everyone on assistance is a welfare leech.

When in reality many are people who used to work, but there are no longer any jobs. People who used to own homes, people with families they can no longer support. But hey, that's fucking hilarious isn't it Right guide and James? Fucking hilarious.

Your disgusting sack of filth lying president took votes from these people by lying and saying he would get them jobs, now its get jobs or lose food for your kids

ha ha ha ha so fucking funny

The only thing more disgusting than trump is his cackling little minions like the two despicable little fuck sticks who run around the board sucking trumps ass every time he farts and mocking people's misfortunes.

I live in Warwick RI either of you or any of your kind can feel free to send me a message if you're anywhere in my area for a face to face.

I've always wanted to know what a walking talking piece of malicious cowardly shit actually looks like.

You obviously haven't looked for work lately have you?

I think what you should do is stop judging people and acting like everything is easy out there.

Then go to hell with James and Rightguide and watch them lick each other's nuts

Well now, judging by the timbre this person sounds like another prolapsed asshole with no cheeks. Lordy!

 

[Rightguide]

The funny thing is that I've seen several news stories over the years where people are complaining about changes to immigration policies. They say that keeping illegal Latinos out of the US is going to make food prices skyrocket...

Don't believe it, maybe in the very short term, but we see how fast burger technology is coming online to do away with $15 an hour labor in that industry. It won't be long until lettuce picking technology will be introduced, as it has with other crops.