Anonymous wrote:Why are MAGA always so concerned with the worthiness of poor people who receive government benefits but not corporations, wealthy farmers and billionaires? Is it because they imagine all recipients have black or brown skin?

This. Look at all of the racist claptrap on this thread despite the facts: the largest group of recipients is white; 90% are native born citizens; 2/3 are on it for less than 2 years

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to stop incentivizing people to have additional children they can’t afford. Every human interest story I read that is designed to tug at my heart strings just exasperates me more. All these unemployed/underemployed parents with too many mouths to feed! “How on earth am I supposed to feed my 9 children on my PT McDonalds salary??” The fact that these people agree to be interviewed proves they accept zero responsibility for their current plight.

Oooh, I have some ideas...

Provide sex education in schools
Provide contraceptives
Make abortion save and legal.

Many generational welfare recipients actually want to have kids, we all know why.
Many poor people don’t have the executive function to use contraceptives unless they are like shipped to their home address and administered on the spot. If something requires the smallest effort it’s not done. I actually think this is key to poverty (besides social issues), poor executive function.
Lastly, many view abortion as a sin so it doesn’t help either

Too harsh, but it does appear that being unmarried (esp but not exclusively with kids) dramatically increases the likelihood that one will use SNAP.

Compelling reason for individuals to seek and maintain lifetime partners and for the government to encourage and incentivize this.

If marriage is such a good thing, why do people need to be coerced into it by the threat of starvation?

PP.

Huh? I’m not suggesting that SNAP be used to force people to get married.

What I am saying is that being single, esp. with kids or when older, dramatically increases your odds of being poor and needing programs like SNAP.

No value judgment, just fact.

Why are MAGA always so concerned with the worthiness of poor people who receive government benefits but not corporations, wealthy farmers and billionaires? Is it because they imagine all recipients have black or brown skin?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to stop incentivizing people to have additional children they can’t afford. Every human interest story I read that is designed to tug at my heart strings just exasperates me more. All these unemployed/underemployed parents with too many mouths to feed! “How on earth am I supposed to feed my 9 children on my PT McDonalds salary??” The fact that these people agree to be interviewed proves they accept zero responsibility for their current plight.

Oooh, I have some ideas...

Provide sex education in schools
Provide contraceptives
Make abortion save and legal.

Many generational welfare recipients actually want to have kids, we all know why.
Many poor people don’t have the executive function to use contraceptives unless they are like shipped to their home address and administered on the spot. If something requires the smallest effort it’s not done. I actually think this is key to poverty (besides social issues), poor executive function.
Lastly, many view abortion as a sin so it doesn’t help either

Too harsh, but it does appear that being unmarried (esp but not exclusively with kids) dramatically increases the likelihood that one will use SNAP.

Compelling reason for individuals to seek and maintain lifetime partners and for the government to encourage and incentivize this.

If marriage is such a good thing, why do people need to be coerced into it by the threat of starvation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like Trump TACO'ed on SNAP. They will pay. But, arbitrarily, they are saying they will only pay 50% of the normal amount.

Cost is $9 billion a month.
The contingency fund has less than that.

He can take it from the White Hoise Renovarion fund. Or the blow boats up in the Caribbean fund.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are on SNAP because of their income. I am 100% certain they would take a higher paying job if they had the chance. I wish people would stop seeing poverty as a moral failing. The prosperity gospel BS is not Christian.

Only 28% of SNAP households had any earned income at all in 2023.

These people are moochers.

25% of Haitian immigrants are on SNAP.
45% of Afghan immigrants are on SNAP.
52% of Senegalese immigrants are on SNAP.

DC is redistributing wealth by stealing from productive Americans to subsidize foreigners and their way of life. That is unacceptable and America Last.

Republicans changed the law this summer. Even if those numbers are true (which I don’t believe) they no longer qualify for snap as of October 1

Haitian and Cuban migrants are still eligible for some reason

You are right. Republicans carved them out. They can mooch but not afghan refugees who risked their lives helping American soldiers.

Some can still get snap, aca vouchers and other public assistance but only a specific group:

Cuban and Haitian Entrants: Individuals with the specific "Cuban and Haitian entrant" status are a notable exception to many of the benefit cuts. They remain eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid, Medicare, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace premium tax credits, provided they meet other eligibility criteria.


Other Haitian Nationals (e.g., TPS holders, parolees, asylum seekers): Haitian immigrants who hold other statuses, such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), humanitarian parole (including those under the CHNV processes), or are asylum applicants, are negatively impacted by the law's provisions.

Public Benefits: These individuals are no longer eligible for SNAP (effective July 4, 2025, though state implementation varies) and will lose eligibility for Medicaid and CHIP on October 1, 2026, and ACA subsidies on January 1, 2027.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People are on SNAP because of their income. I am 100% certain they would take a higher paying job if they had the chance. I wish people would stop seeing poverty as a moral failing. The prosperity gospel BS is not Christian.

Only 28% of SNAP households had any earned income at all in 2023.

These people are moochers.

25% of Haitian immigrants are on SNAP.
45% of Afghan immigrants are on SNAP.
52% of Senegalese immigrants are on SNAP.

DC is redistributing wealth by stealing from productive Americans to subsidize foreigners and their way of life. That is unacceptable and America Last.

Republicans changed the law this summer. Even if those numbers are true (which I don’t believe) they no longer qualify for snap as of October 1

Haitian and Cuban migrants are still eligible for some reason

You are right. Republicans carved them out. They can mooch but not afghan refugees who risked their lives helping American soldiers.

Anonymous wrote:So it looks like Trump TACO'ed on SNAP. They will pay. But, arbitrarily, they are saying they will only pay 50% of the normal amount.

Cost is $9 billion a month.
The contingency fund has less than that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to stop incentivizing people to have additional children they can’t afford. Every human interest story I read that is designed to tug at my heart strings just exasperates me more. All these unemployed/underemployed parents with too many mouths to feed! “How on earth am I supposed to feed my 9 children on my PT McDonalds salary??” The fact that these people agree to be interviewed proves they accept zero responsibility for their current plight.

Oooh, I have some ideas...

Provide sex education in schools
Provide contraceptives
Make abortion save and legal.

Many generational welfare recipients actually want to have kids, we all know why.
Many poor people don’t have the executive function to use contraceptives unless they are like shipped to their home address and administered on the spot. If something requires the smallest effort it’s not done. I actually think this is key to poverty (besides social issues), poor executive function.
Lastly, many view abortion as a sin so it doesn’t help either

Too harsh, but it does appear that being unmarried (esp but not exclusively with kids) dramatically increases the likelihood that one will use SNAP.

Compelling reason for individuals to seek and maintain lifetime partners and for the government to encourage and incentivize this.

If, as you seem to agree, poor people are poor due to lack of executive function, I don’t see how you could effectively incentivize them to get married by withholding food stamps.

What is poor. I see some programs providing benefits at 200, 400, even 800 percent of the poverty level. Does that mean the recipients are "poor", or is the system being gamed when that happens?

Where do you see these people and know their precise income?

Dp but I think they are talking about program eligibility only.

For snap specifically the threshold is very low (or high?) as in you need to be poor. A single person household gets cut off at about $1800 per month in income. A two person household with $2200 in income (imagine that) gets about $200 per month

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to stop incentivizing people to have additional children they can’t afford. Every human interest story I read that is designed to tug at my heart strings just exasperates me more. All these unemployed/underemployed parents with too many mouths to feed! “How on earth am I supposed to feed my 9 children on my PT McDonalds salary??” The fact that these people agree to be interviewed proves they accept zero responsibility for their current plight.

Oooh, I have some ideas...

Provide sex education in schools
Provide contraceptives
Make abortion save and legal.

Many generational welfare recipients actually want to have kids, we all know why.
Many poor people don’t have the executive function to use contraceptives unless they are like shipped to their home address and administered on the spot. If something requires the smallest effort it’s not done. I actually think this is key to poverty (besides social issues), poor executive function.
Lastly, many view abortion as a sin so it doesn’t help either

Too harsh, but it does appear that being unmarried (esp but not exclusively with kids) dramatically increases the likelihood that one will use SNAP.

Compelling reason for individuals to seek and maintain lifetime partners and for the government to encourage and incentivize this.

If, as you seem to agree, poor people are poor due to lack of executive function, I don’t see how you could effectively incentivize them to get married by withholding food stamps.

Marriage doesn’t influence snap much one way or the other as the baby daddy in the home needs to be reported (mandatory member of family unit).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We also need to stop incentivizing people to have additional children they can’t afford. Every human interest story I read that is designed to tug at my heart strings just exasperates me more. All these unemployed/underemployed parents with too many mouths to feed! “How on earth am I supposed to feed my 9 children on my PT McDonalds salary??” The fact that these people agree to be interviewed proves they accept zero responsibility for their current plight.

Oooh, I have some ideas...

Provide sex education in schools
Provide contraceptives
Make abortion save and legal.

Many generational welfare recipients actually want to have kids, we all know why.
Many poor people don’t have the executive function to use contraceptives unless they are like shipped to their home address and administered on the spot. If something requires the smallest effort it’s not done. I actually think this is key to poverty (besides social issues), poor executive function.
Lastly, many view abortion as a sin so it doesn’t help either

Too harsh, but it does appear that being unmarried (esp but not exclusively with kids) dramatically increases the likelihood that one will use SNAP.

Compelling reason for individuals to seek and maintain lifetime partners and for the government to encourage and incentivize this.

As per the rules, one is required to report the father of children when in the same home. It’s the most targeted type of fraud too, investigators coming to a house to see if the baby daddy lives there. I am sure many ppl still lie about it though.
However I don’t think being unmarried matters much for snap.
It does for tax refunds though

So it looks like Trump TACO'ed on SNAP. They will pay. But, arbitrarily, they are saying they will only pay 50% of the normal amount.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If your business model depends on you exploiting your workers then its a bad model and you deserve to go out of business.

Also, many consumers are price conscious because we barely pay them enough to make ends meet. Pay them more and in turn they will more readily pay more for goods and services.

For decades we have artificially been keeping wages stagnant for decades, despite worker productivity and profitability steadily increasing.

We have a corporate greed problem.

Too many people want to blame businesses if they won't implement the policies people want.
I remember Hillary saying businesses are at fault if they won't provide the health care she is mandating- they spend too much on profit.

Healthcare should not be tied to employers. We need universal healthcare. Beyond that, yes, companies are exploitative/greedy/running bad business models and this has kept wages stagnant despite rising profits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because democrats allowed a huge surplus of low wage workers to happen

Stop the overwhelming immigration and wages will rise

But the elites want more low wage workers to reduce wages to stop inflation

There was a study that found over 13% of Walmart employees in Ohio were on food stamps. In addition to Walmart, there are also other big employers like fast food chains, Dollar Tree and others that pay a lot of their employees minimum wage and that has absolutely nothing to do with "flooded with illegals" - it has everything to do with corporate greed, bad business models that depend on exploiting workers and so on.

If we got rid of every illegal alien there would still be companies refusing to pay a living wage.

DP.

You need to take your analysis one step further.

Why do companies refuse to pay a living wage? Because if they do, foreign or domestic competitors will undercut their prices and they’ll go out of business.

Most consumers are incredibly price-sensitive; all else being equal, not many will pay higher price to support higher wages.

More prison labor coming to a town near you . “Would you like fries with that shake?”

Everyone who shops at Walmart, Temu, Amazon, eats fast-casual, etc. is part of the problem.

Interesting choice: pay higher wages but increase unemployment and cost of goods? Or pay lower wages with lower unemployment and cheaper goods?

Florida will be an interesting bellwether for this: min wage was raised to $15 via referendum.

Removing illegal immigrants from the labor pool will put pressure on wages, so this might not be an issue.

When people are poor and hungry, they will work for cheap. That's really what you aren't saying and a more probable outcome than what you said.

The minimum wage law is still there.

Laws seem to be easily ignored these days

It's like people know there will be no enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Because democrats allowed a huge surplus of low wage workers to happen

Stop the overwhelming immigration and wages will rise

But the elites want more low wage workers to reduce wages to stop inflation

There was a study that found over 13% of Walmart employees in Ohio were on food stamps. In addition to Walmart, there are also other big employers like fast food chains, Dollar Tree and others that pay a lot of their employees minimum wage and that has absolutely nothing to do with "flooded with illegals" - it has everything to do with corporate greed, bad business models that depend on exploiting workers and so on.

If we got rid of every illegal alien there would still be companies refusing to pay a living wage.

DP.

You need to take your analysis one step further.

Why do companies refuse to pay a living wage? Because if they do, foreign or domestic competitors will undercut their prices and they’ll go out of business.

Most consumers are incredibly price-sensitive; all else being equal, not many will pay higher price to support higher wages.

More prison labor coming to a town near you . “Would you like fries with that shake?”

Everyone who shops at Walmart, Temu, Amazon, eats fast-casual, etc. is part of the problem.

Interesting choice: pay higher wages but increase unemployment and cost of goods? Or pay lower wages with lower unemployment and cheaper goods?

Florida will be an interesting bellwether for this: min wage was raised to $15 via referendum.

Removing illegal immigrants from the labor pool will put pressure on wages, so this might not be an issue.

When people are poor and hungry, they will work for cheap. That's really what you aren't saying and a more probable outcome than what you said.

The minimum wage law is still there.