Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

It’s a good argument for making birth control and abortion free and readily accessible.

But republicans want women to have more kids. Oh…not THESE women.

I’m the PP and that’s why the abortion bans make no sense to me. Ironically, I assume I am the type of woman they’d like to have children (white, college educated, Christian) but I have none…because I can’t afford them. However, I live in an area with lots of middle eastern people, and I see a a ton of them with multiple kids.

People don’t know what they want. To quote Michael Jackson “If you can’t feed your baby, then don’t have a baby.” Americans were raised on it, but are simultaneously getting upset when people don’t have kids because they feel like they can’t afford it. Which one is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They'll have to get a job. Stop mooching.

SNAP has work requirements https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/work-requirements

Tell me about how those are enforced?
They aren’t.

Mom does drugs. Mom gets food from food bank. Mom has money to spend on drugs rather than food now. Someone will ALWAYS give you food. And if someone is always willing to give you food, that also means that you can spend your money on other things.

How does SNAP fraud work, since we are on the topic of SNAP being used in ways that it shouldn’t be: you go to the store with your EBT card and purchase something now allowed, but the cashier at the store rings is up as a food purchase and allows you to use the card (usually ringing up the items at more than their actual price). This is typically done at the corner and conveniences stores, not the big box stores. The smaller store you are, the more you can get away with.

And one more way: you go to the store and you offer to purchase someone’s food with your EBT card and you give them your cash instead of them handing the cash to the cashier. Many times, to make the deal better, the person with the EBT will offer to take LESS cash for the purchase, just so they can get the cash. You have $100 in groceries, EBT cardholder will pay for your groceries and then have you give them $75. Tada! Fraud.

Wanna know how ‘illegals’ are getting SNAP? Their kids. Kids were born here, they are US citizens. Parent’s aren’t. Family of 5 with two adults that are not citizens by there children that are? They will get SNAP for 3 people, the children. And it is absolutely impossible for the adults NOT to eat from that SNAP money. So in a roundabout way, the ‘illegals’ ARE getting SNAP.

$9.2 billion per month on SNAP, every month. That’s what taxpayers pay. Not the government. The government doesn’t have any money. They take money from the taxpayer.

The kids get free breakfast and lunch from school, but Mom gets the money in her SNAP to pay for breakfast and lunch. The illegals that have 3 kids, they get food money for three kids who eat free breakfast and lunch at school. The taxpayers have to budget food costs and medical co-pays and health insurance premiums.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food Stamps (SNAP benefits) can’t be paid out if Congress does not appropriate funds for November.

What will happen if 40+ million people don’t get food stamps about 10 days from now? Total monthly benefits are just under $8 billlion.

In a few short days, 40 million people are going to lose access to other people’s money!!

sounds like a positive trend.

maybe that is why Trumps approval ratings are inching upwards.

Great, then you can stop having access to other people’s money too. You can pave your own roads, provide your own fire and police and military protection, eat unregulated and untested food, homeschool all your kids, work until 80, then pay full price out of pocket for outdated medical treatments and all your retirement costs. And don’t even think about flying or visiting national parks.

Different poster here.
You really don't understand the difference between all those things you listed, which benefit and are available to ALL residents, and direct funds that go straight into an INDIVIDUAL's pocket?

It would be available to you as well, thats the point of a social safety net. And as stated over and over, majority of SNAP recipients work. Including military personnel.

No, it's not available to me as well, because there is an income requirement.

There is no income requirement to drive/walk/bike on roads
There is no income requirement for police and military protection
There is no income requirement to consume regulated and tested food
There is no income requirement for public school.
These are available to ALL residents.
Food stamps are not.

But I guess you answered my initial question. You do not understand.

RIGHT! IF YOU MADE UNDER THE INCOME REQUIREMENTS IT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO YOU.

Everyone cant go to all national parks. You need to have the money to fly or drive, lodging or camping equipment. Thats an income requirement. Do you have the same issue with subsidized or sliding income-based passes to national parks?
Not all neighborhoods have local fire and EMS that can respond in less than 10 minutes- do you? Thats because you live in a well-funded community.
Not all public schools have the same resources.
Not all communities have walking paths or bike paths or sidewalks because they are expensive to build and maintain.

RIGHT. FOOD STAMPS HAVE AN INCOME REQUIREMENT AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS YOU LISTED DO NOT.
Yet, you apparently do not understand that they are not the same. Ignorant.

No you're apparently myopic. Because I listed other things that actually do base on income, indirectly. Is it a strict you must make less than this to qualify no but there are lots of other programs that are income based

With that said what's your solution Einstein? Should everyone get free food or should no one get free food because you somehow feel like you're a victim in this whole situation?

I I really do want to understand whether you're a sociopath or if you have a real argument to be made besides screaming from the rooftops that you don't qualify so apparently the snap system shouldn't exist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

I understand your frustration. This is why poverty is a cycle. Being raised by a teen mom or single mom makes the children much more likely to repeat the cycle. You can also thank abstinence only education, religious indoctrination, and people who have never known love looking for love in a baby.

Humans are going to have sex, optimal conditions or not. That doesn't have to mean having kids they cannot feed, and we need to do a better job of making other options available to young women. We have seen a drastic decrease in teen pregnancies, so something is working.

This. SNAP isn't the problem. The average benefit per person is $188/month.(https://www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/a-quick-guide-to-snap-eligibility-and-benefits#:~:text=We%20estimate%20the%20average%20benefit,role%20in%20determining%20SNAP%20benefits.) Could you raise a child for $188? No, you couldn't.

So instead, you want to PUNISH them for something they can't undo. And instead of helping to break the cycle, you want to make it worse.

It makes no sense to me.

Better not ask Vance. Remember that he and his lazy a**, Dorito munching family was on food stamps when he was growing up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

It’s a good argument for making birth control and abortion free and readily accessible.

But republicans want women to have more kids. Oh…not THESE women.

Medicaid provides birth control, you can buy it OTC now too or condoms. Many states also have free birth control programs. Birth control is extremely accessible

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the pentagon get trillions of dollars yet citizens can’t get money for food

They can get jobs and pay for their own food. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to provide for themselves, especially on a long-term basis. People on food stamps for years need to be encouraged to be more self-sufficient.

Even the lady with seven kids from seven men? Clearly, she’s too busy doing other stuff to work.

She wouldn't have seven kids if she didn't expect to be paid for it. Isn't it funny how effective it is when you pay people for each kid and parent can afford to not work? Suddenly birth rates rise For all the idiots who keep complaining about low birth rates and what possibly could be done when there is no child labor allowed, people aren't living on farms, and there is no survival advantage to large families.

Sigh, it's like they can't critically think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

It’s a good argument for making birth control and abortion free and readily accessible.

But republicans want women to have more kids. Oh…not THESE women.

I’m the PP and that’s why the abortion bans make no sense to me. Ironically, I assume I am the type of woman they’d like to have children (white, college educated, Christian) but I have none…because I can’t afford them. However, I live in an area with lots of middle eastern people, and I see a a ton of them with multiple kids.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

It’s a good argument for making birth control and abortion free and readily accessible.

But republicans want women to have more kids. Oh…not THESE women.

Anonymous wrote:I’ll preface this by saying I don’t condone taking away the SNAP benefits. What I don’t understand is why every person interviewed in these articles has so many children. It’s always ‘a 21 year old single mother of 3’ or ‘she and her husband are both 25, unemployed, and expecting their first child.’ I totally understand that situations can change drastically, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here.

Idk…it just frustrates me because my husband and I want children, make good money, chose a modest townhome in an area people on this site look down on in anticipation of paying out the a$$ for childcare…and we still don’t feel financially comfortable having a child. I don’t understand why people are bringing kids into the world without a plan to feed them. It makes me angry. I know very few people with 3 or 4 kids.

Watch "Idiocracy" Also, paying people to have kids and compensating for each kid works every time, people are now realizing that there is a solution to fixing low birth rates, they just don't like to hear it. And it's not abortion bans..

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the pentagon get trillions of dollars yet citizens can’t get money for food

They can get jobs and pay for their own food. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to provide for themselves, especially on a long-term basis. People on food stamps for years need to be encouraged to be more self-sufficient.

Even the lady with seven kids from seven men? Clearly, she’s too busy doing other stuff to work.

Oh so you're going to bring back Roe v Wade so she doesn't have to birth all 7 of those kids? Great, then we agree.

she birthed most of them under Roe v Wade

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the pentagon get trillions of dollars yet citizens can’t get money for food

They can get jobs and pay for their own food. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to provide for themselves, especially on a long-term basis. People on food stamps for years need to be encouraged to be more self-sufficient.

Ok smartie. Let's see you put together a budget for a single Mom and a child based on $15 an hour in the DC area. And before you retort "she needs to get better skills and higher pay", think about how much YOU depend on the floor stockers at Walmart and Target, the fast food preparers at McDonalds and Panera, the grocery employees that stock foodstuffs, the Amazon warehouse workers that load your crap into trucks. If all of these people actually DID get high paying white collar jobs (which don't exist), most of the services you depend on would crumble.

Correct. Many who complain about SS/Medicare, SNAP and other government handouts are unaware that this is a tax on labor (to ensure access to cheap labor that's not paid living wages). To have affordable food and other things many people have to work for very low wages which will not allow them to purchase basics not to mention save anything for retirement. To have access to this labor pool we pay taxes.

Otherwise, good luck growing and plucking and cooking your own chicken You either take that or deal with the fact that we have to subsidize working poor, so that you can go to a grocery store and buy a freshly cooked rotisserie chicken for under 15 bucks, which is likely a fraction of your hourly pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the pentagon get trillions of dollars yet citizens can’t get money for food

They can get jobs and pay for their own food. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to provide for themselves, especially on a long-term basis. People on food stamps for years need to be encouraged to be more self-sufficient.

Even the lady with seven kids from seven men? Clearly, she’s too busy doing other stuff to work.

Subsidizing her to have more kids so hardworking people have fewer is civilizational suicide.

Wow paying people to have kids works? You wouldn't say

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does the pentagon get trillions of dollars yet citizens can’t get money for food

They can get jobs and pay for their own food. There's nothing wrong with expecting them to provide for themselves, especially on a long-term basis. People on food stamps for years need to be encouraged to be more self-sufficient.

Even the lady with seven kids from seven men? Clearly, she’s too busy doing other stuff to work.

She wouldn't have seven kids if she didn't expect to be paid for it. Isn't it funny how effective it is when you pay people for each kid and parent can afford to not work? Suddenly birth rates rise For all the idiots who keep complaining about low birth rates and what possibly could be done when there is no child labor allowed, people aren't living on farms, and there is no survival advantage to large families.