So what happens when the Federal government can’t issue Nov Food Stamps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Republicans have changed the rules. No more moochers if you have kids age 14 and up. No more mooching from refugees, from recent foster youth, homeless or veterans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Call your senators. Tell them to nuke the filibuster and then make the laws even stricter. No more soda or candy or junk. No more waivers. Stricter work requirements for people with kids. It can be done with 51 votes.

You don’t even have to actually work 20 hrs. It’s 20 hrs OR the hours equivalent to total the monetary amount of 20 hrs at minimum wage. But even then, there are a lot of waivers people can get to not have any work requirement at all. It isn’t difficult at all to get these waivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Yes. The let them eat cake philosophy of government. Went so well before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Call your senators. Tell them to nuke the filibuster and then make the laws even stricter. No more soda or candy or junk. No more waivers. Stricter work requirements for people with kids. It can be done with 51 votes.

You don’t even have to actually work 20 hrs. It’s 20 hrs OR the hours equivalent to total the monetary amount of 20 hrs at minimum wage. But even then, there are a lot of waivers people can get to not have any work requirement at all. It isn’t difficult at all to get these waivers.

Rs also making states pay more for admin costs. States will grant fewer waivers or may drop out of SNAP all
Together if they can’t afford it. No More Moochers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Call your senators. Tell them to nuke the filibuster and then make the laws even stricter. No more soda or candy or junk. No more waivers. Stricter work requirements for people with kids. It can be done with 51 votes.

You don’t even have to actually work 20 hrs. It’s 20 hrs OR the hours equivalent to total the monetary amount of 20 hrs at minimum wage. But even then, there are a lot of waivers people can get to not have any work requirement at all. It isn’t difficult at all to get these waivers.

You literally talking out of your a%$. Just look at any state that tried to verify volunteer work. It COST MORE than the benefits!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

So you want to yell at the kids about their parents' choices instead of feed them? That'll teach 'em!

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

So you want to yell at the kids about their parents' choices instead of feed them? That'll teach 'em!

Their parents will feed them. You think the parents are going to starve? Everyone needs to eat- and if people don’t have the government sending them money that just means that now have to use their own money. And they will. Yes, most on snap do have a source of income and could afford essential foods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Call your senators. Tell them to nuke the filibuster and then make the laws even stricter. No more soda or candy or junk. No more waivers. Stricter work requirements for people with kids. It can be done with 51 votes.

You don’t even have to actually work 20 hrs. It’s 20 hrs OR the hours equivalent to total the monetary amount of 20 hrs at minimum wage. But even then, there are a lot of waivers people can get to not have any work requirement at all. It isn’t difficult at all to get these waivers.

Most people on food stamps actually work. Those who don't usually have disabled kids, are disabled themselves or are veterans. The question we should be asking is why minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Can we apply this to billionaires seeking tax loopholes and huge corporations taking government subsidies? Can we apply this to farmers?

I mean, if we could apply this to everyone getting money from the government this will get interesting very fast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Call your senators. Tell them to nuke the filibuster and then make the laws even stricter. No more soda or candy or junk. No more waivers. Stricter work requirements for people with kids. It can be done with 51 votes.

You don’t even have to actually work 20 hrs. It’s 20 hrs OR the hours equivalent to total the monetary amount of 20 hrs at minimum wage. But even then, there are a lot of waivers people can get to not have any work requirement at all. It isn’t difficult at all to get these waivers.

Most people on food stamps actually work. Those who don't usually have disabled kids, are disabled themselves or are veterans. The question we should be asking is why minimum wage is still $7.25 an hour.

No more moochers. Veterans and homeless now subject to work requirements. They’ll be fine.

[Anonymous]

No more moochers in KY.

https://kentuckylantern.com/2025/11/03/snap-work-reporting-requirements-are-expanding-what-kentuckians-should-know/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Republicans have changed the rules. No more moochers if you have kids age 14 and up. No more mooching from refugees, from recent foster youth, homeless or veterans.

Only 34% of SNAP recipients have children. Nobody should be mooching. Get a job!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Republicans have changed the rules. No more moochers if you have kids age 14 and up. No more mooching from refugees, from recent foster youth, homeless or veterans.

Only 34% of SNAP recipients have children. Nobody should be mooching. Get a job!

How many of those are seniors?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I love is how the Republicans proclaim to be Christian but cut food aid to the poor. Is that what Jesus would do?

Jesus would teach a person who is able to support themselves not to be on welfare their whole lives, unlike the intergenerational welfare we have now.

You are not "owed".

I believe his primary commandment was to love.

Not making people who are perfectly capable of independence, dependent on others is love. Tough love, but love nonetheless.

It's a safety net. Most people are on it temporarily. This idea that the program is full of people who do not need it is not based in reality. Making people in need out to be lazy moochers isn't love, tough or otherwise.

Not really. Many, many are on it for years. They are a lot of exemptions that pretty much make it possible for anyone to be on it for years. If you have children under 14 (and keep having children) or take care of anyone, you could be on it for years. You can get waivers if you meet the 20 hr per week work requirement and stay on it for years as well.

Those children deserve to be fed in this country.

They didn't choose their parents

And their parents often chose to spend money on various non essential things. If they had to be responsible for buying food, they would

Republicans have changed the rules. No more moochers if you have kids age 14 and up. No more mooching from refugees, from recent foster youth, homeless or veterans.

Only 34% of SNAP recipients have children. Nobody should be mooching. Get a job!

How many of those are seniors?

Or people with a disability?

Also glad to see you are ok with kicking veterans off snap. Way to support their service.