Raise in Unemployment Benifits makes some ineligable for food stamps

[minnew 4]

So an extra $25 a month in UI makes you ineligible for almost $300 worth of food stamps...absolutely ridiculous...Unfortunately its the fallout like the article said of Congress pushing through the Stimulus Package which had the increase in UI in there. I hope they can change the cap for food stamps as well. Its not like its an increase in a cash benefit, like TANF!! In this economy people need it so badly, its a basic necessity! Jobs are scarce! Most of the food stamp programs now are administered through cards, (like a debit or preloaded Visa or MC), so it takes away the demeaning aspect, except like Carla said you cannot use it on TP, toothpaste, sanitary products, maybe it has something to do with it being a program run by the USDA.

Edited June 16, 2009 by minnew

[Emancipation 2]

One of the things that has helped hubby & I through hard times IS the fact that we can get all our toiletries for free at CVS & Walgreens with coupons and reward programs. It just takes a little bit of organization and coupon savvy and voila! Free toiletries for life. One of those thing I about the US.. loads of coupons + sale prices + rewards programs = free free free stuff.. slightly off topic of course..

[thetreble 19]

.it is the government that made the "meet once in two years rule" not me...

So aren't they the ones passing judgement on potential immigrants there, in assuming that a couple can make a lifelong marriage commitment just in one short in-person meeting/visit in a long span of two years in between?

So if the government shouldn't decide, who should? I mean come on! You are talking about letting people in and out of your country and keeping your resident's safe.

Ant- You seem very judgmental of the government and at the end of the day, we elect the people who serve as our representatives. Every country in the world deals with immigration at a federal level. You can't expect immigrants to be the judges of themselves and their relationship or else it would be chaos.

They have to set standards and guidelines because that is what government's of the world do.

I agree that hardships can fall on us all, without a doubt! But i've also seen people abuse the system and spend their welfare cheques on candy instead of socks of their child. I think it all depends on what and who you are exposed to. I used to live in the most densely populated area in the United States where A LOT of people are on an array of government assistance. If someone's making almost as much money as I was working full time, but they are on welfare and benefits, then what is the incentive to go get a job? Even in a bad economy, there are jobs out there. My husband has a lot of restaurant employees who he hires to try and get them off the system in a way, but in a few weeks they don't like work so the stop showing up and it happens all over again.

I like the idea of social welfare; I don't like when people continuously drain it. They have made the system, specifically here in the US, to benefit the same people over and over again. If I lost my job all of a sudden tomorrow, and we were on one income and started to feel the pinch, I still wouldn't qualify for government benefits so I'd have to suffer through it even though we would be really tight money wise and I don't know if we'd make it. Just like how I didn't qualify for OSAP in Ontario but yet my parents didn't make enough money to live on and put me through university at the same time. So, I had to borrow from the bank at a high interest rate and begin paying it back the second I pulled the money out. I don't think the systems are set up in a way to help ALL people. I think there are limitations. So as a middle class tax payer, I pay large amounts into the system but if I fall hard on my luck (for me, what is "hard on my luck") I still don't qualify and what ever contributions I have made throughout my life thus far I'm never entitled to.

Right now in NJ, we have a problem with "Abbott School Districts" which were districts termed in the 80s. They get more funding because the schools are overall in poorer districts. Well, 30 years later, these districts that receive 2, 3, 4 times the money that the others do in New Jersey from the state still have the same graduation rate as they did before this all started. Nothing has really improved, even with additional funding. You can't throw money at a problem like education in poor areas. Many of the parents simply don't care and therefore, the child doesn't care. But yet I, as the tax payer, will keep putting in more than my fair share (as I have no children) and when I do have kids, it won't even really go to my children's district.

Any ways, that's way off topic. I hope none of you are offended by what I'm saying. I was always very liberal in Canada because I think generally, programs are run very proficiently and people get the help they need.

I feel COMPLETELY different here in the US, and maybe it's because of where I live...I really don't know. I have just seen SO many people take advantage of government assistance, which means they are taking advantage of me. Right now I'm working 10 hour days with a long commute...and the only assistance I would like is some SLEEP.

[thetreble 19]

So an extra $25 a month in UI makes you ineligible for almost $300 worth of food stamps...absolutely ridiculous...Unfortunately its the fallout like the article said of Congress pushing through the Stimulus Package which had the increase in UI in there. I hope they can change the cap for food stamps as well. Its not like its an increase in a cash benefit, like TANF!! In this economy people need it so badly, its a basic necessity! Jobs are scarce! Most of the food stamp programs now are administered through cards, (like a debit or preloaded Visa or MC), so it takes away the demeaning aspect, except like Carla said you cannot use it on TP, toothpaste, sanitary products, maybe it has something to do with it being a program run by the USDA.

But why should you buy toilet paper with your food stamp money? If you are collecting welfare or unemployment benefits, that money should come from there.

The reason they don't allow people to buy other things is because the repercussions would be devastating. They want to ensure than mom and/or dad are spending it on food for the kids. If there were no limitations as to how you could spend the money, there would be many children out there starving, more than there already are.

[minnew 4]

.it is the government that made the "meet once in two years rule" not me...

So aren't they the ones passing judgement on potential immigrants there, in assuming that a couple can make a lifelong marriage commitment just in one short in-person meeting/visit in a long span of two years in between?

So if the government shouldn't decide, who should? I mean come on! You are talking about letting people in and out of your country and keeping your resident's safe.

Ant- You seem very judgmental of the government and at the end of the day, we elect the people who serve as our representatives. Every country in the world deals with immigration at a federal level. You can't expect immigrants to be the judges of themselves and their relationship or else it would be chaos.

They have to set standards and guidelines because that is what government's of the world do.

I agree that hardships can fall on us all, without a doubt! But i've also seen people abuse the system and spend their welfare cheques on candy instead of socks of their child. I think it all depends on what and who you are exposed to. I used to live in the most densely populated area in the United States where A LOT of people are on an array of government assistance. If someone's making almost as much money as I was working full time, but they are on welfare and benefits, then what is the incentive to go get a job? Even in a bad economy, there are jobs out there. My husband has a lot of restaurant employees who he hires to try and get them off the system in a way, but in a few weeks they don't like work so the stop showing up and it happens all over again.

I like the idea of social welfare; I don't like when people continuously drain it. They have made the system, specifically here in the US, to benefit the same people over and over again. If I lost my job all of a sudden tomorrow, and we were on one income and started to feel the pinch, I still wouldn't qualify for government benefits so I'd have to suffer through it even though we would be really tight money wise and I don't know if we'd make it. Just like how I didn't qualify for OSAP in Ontario but yet my parents didn't make enough money to live on and put me through university at the same time. So, I had to borrow from the bank at a high interest rate and begin paying it back the second I pulled the money out. I don't think the systems are set up in a way to help ALL people. I think there are limitations. So as a middle class tax payer, I pay large amounts into the system but if I fall hard on my luck (for me, what is "hard on my luck") I still don't qualify and what ever contributions I have made throughout my life thus far I'm never entitled to.

Right now in NJ, we have a problem with "Abbott School Districts" which were districts termed in the 80s. They get more funding because the schools are overall in poorer districts. Well, 30 years later, these districts that receive 2, 3, 4 times the money that the others do in New Jersey from the state still have the same graduation rate as they did before this all started. Nothing has really improved, even with additional funding. You can't throw money at a problem like education in poor areas. Many of the parents simply don't care and therefore, the child doesn't care. But yet I, as the tax payer, will keep putting in more than my fair share (as I have no children) and when I do have kids, it won't even really go to my children's district.

Any ways, that's way off topic. I hope none of you are offended by what I'm saying. I was always very liberal in Canada because I think generally, programs are run very proficiently and people get the help they need.

I feel COMPLETELY different here in the US, and maybe it's because of where I live...I really don't know. I have just seen SO many people take advantage of government assistance, which means they are taking advantage of me. Right now I'm working 10 hour days with a long commute...and the only assistance I would like is some SLEEP.

Ditto to what you said!

I have seen people abuse the cash benefits, its so sickening. I have also seen coworkers who did not want to accept a wage increase because it would put them over the edge for food stamp benefits for a family of 5. The wage increase was not substantial enough for them to be able to afford food on their own. Or those who work only part-time to keep themselves under the limits, purposely, even though they are more than able, so much for TANF working to get people OFF welfare!

The system is broken, the stupid part about all this is that the UI increase was intended to help those who have lost jobs due to this economy...now all it has done is hurt those who need food assistance in the form of a NON cash benefit. UGH!!

I feel like getting that bumper sticker that says "I work so that millions on welfare...." Only pertaining to the people who abuse it, not the ones who genuinely need it.

Edited June 16, 2009 by minnew

[trailmix 77]

So an extra $25 a month in UI makes you ineligible for almost $300 worth of food stamps...absolutely ridiculous...Unfortunately its the fallout like the article said of Congress pushing through the Stimulus Package which had the increase in UI in there. I hope they can change the cap for food stamps as well. Its not like its an increase in a cash benefit, like TANF!! In this economy people need it so badly, its a basic necessity! Jobs are scarce! Most of the food stamp programs now are administered through cards, (like a debit or preloaded Visa or MC), so it takes away the demeaning aspect, except like Carla said you cannot use it on TP, toothpaste, sanitary products, maybe it has something to do with it being a program run by the USDA.

I think it was a good plan and that they now need to get the cap for food stamps lifted.

Edited June 16, 2009 by trailmix

[antda 13]

Nope...I wasn't the one that suggested about the fast-tracking in the first place, as it was another VJer who said such in the first place.....Read here:

Relationships

The system needs to be revamped to make it easier for legit and harder for the not so legits (some sort of minimum co habitation before marriage but longer than three months)

I personally think that certain countries should have a fast tracked system.....

Ant

Edited June 16, 2009 by AntandD

[antda 13]

Nope...I wasn't the one that suggested about the fast-tracking in the first place, as it was another VJer who said such in the first place.....Read here:

Relationships

The system needs to be revamped to make it easier for legit and harder for the not so legits (some sort of minimum co habitation before marriage but longer than three months)

I personally think that certain countries should have a fast tracked system.....

Ant

[Caladan 19]

The original question and article posted was about food stamps. My all time favourite expression is "..there but for the grace of God go I..." We can never be so arrogant to believe bad times are not going to fall on us. Or we shouldn't anyway. If someone needs food stamps, heaven help them...and hopefully the government does as well. Some of the stories from posters already seem to indicate that rents are very high, so the unemployment benefits do not cover everything whatsoever, so I'm glad there is something there for people to be able to at least eat.

I don't agree with the whole idea of "food stamps" however. I think it's demeaning. They can't be used for things non-edible either. Like toilet paper, toothpaste, sanitary products. I think it's an antiquated system and should be stopped. Perhaps in Canada they used food stamps at one time, but I know that in my adult years, people were just given a cheque and they were allowed to buy whatever they wanted. Not anyone's decision but their own as to what they bought with it. They weren't identified by it either.

I would suspect it's hard to have to ask for this type of assistance, let alone be objectified by others when you approach a grocery store identifying you in this manner.

Here "food stamps" usually means a plastic card with an electronic strip, like a debit card but tied to the monthly benefit instead of a bank. It looks like a normal credit card and works in all of the debit/credit readers. I think it's a good thing so it's not demeaning to someone who has fallen on hard times.

It's also probably worth pointing out that the requirements for benefits can vary somewhat by state, so someone could meet the income requirement for immigration but receive benefits, and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. It's not as if the feds don't permit co-sponsors in any case.

[antda 13]

Hi Everyone,

Ok...So I guess everyone here misunderstood what I had to say, so let me clarify my points, for the last and final time on this message thread:

To those couples who have met in-person in very few visits and have had long and successful marriages...that's good, and may they have many more years of happiness.

To those couples who need more time in-person and who need/want more visits and have had long and successful marriages...thats even better....and may they have many more years of happiness too.

Marriage is a lifelong commitment, and should not be taken lightly. Time, dedication, love, etc. are all needed in a marriage.

Long distance relationships are difficult, and are unlike traditional relationships. This means more effort needs to be put into such relationships in order to make them work. And if couples put this extra effort into such, it is more guaranteed for it to work out.

The couple needs to truly know each other before they make such an important life decision. There is nothing wrong with needing more time with each other before becoming married. If more in-person visits are required, by all means, go for it. As when it comes to being with someone for the rest of their lives, extra trips in seeing each other would only help there, no matter what the initial expense or cost is.

To be rushed into marriage by the government and/or other agency or third party, just because of some "minimum requirement", immigration and/or otherwise is wrong. Instead, it is up to the couples themselves to decide what they want/need, and if they need more than the minimum, that's ok too.

The government needs to focus more on cracking down on "fraud couples" when it comes to the immigration process for family/spousal type visas. So many of these fake couples fall through the loopholes, which is unfortunate, and is a drain to the immigration system., especially more so to those "legitimate, legal, genuine, and loving couples" who are negatively judged because of these fraudsters.

There needs to be another way, besides financially, to determine whether or not a couple is "real" or not. Evidence-wise, joint documents (especially financial-wise) can be faked easily, which is mainly what the government now requires to prove whether or not a marriage is real. Evidence and evaulation-wise, personal questions/evaulations/tests/classes, personal correspondences, everyday living routines, personality quirks/traits, interests and hobbies, etc. between couples cannot be faked as easily, which the government should also consider in proving legitimacy of marriages.

If a couple wants their marriage/relationship to work, they will make it work, despite all the obstacles in life. And may those that truly want to make their relationships work, enjoy the happiness that comes with all that hard work.

Last but not least: May all of you VJers be happy and successful in your relationships and marriages!

Next topic/message thread...

Ant

[thetreble 19]

At the end of the day, Ant, I understand completely what you are saying. However, it's just an opinion. You have certain opinions on marriage and marriage values and not every one is going to share them. A long distance commitment and a marriage commitment may mean something to you that it doesn't mean to someone else.

The government DOES use other factors besides financial in determining fraudulent relationships. They look at evidence that is not financial based. So I don't get your adamant point about the US government only taking financials into account when they go through the relationships. What do you expect them to do? Employ people to go around to the homes of new immigrants? Imagine the cost to do that? Imagine how many employees the Feds would have to employ? We are trying to cut down on government employees now as some are overpaid and under worked.

Also, no one is rushed by the government! I wasn't! If I really had wanted to wait longer to be with my significant other, I would have. It was my choice to apply for AOS, just like it's any one's choice to apply for whatever it is you apply for. No one forces your hand to anything.

At the end of the day, again, it goes back to having STANDARDS. Every where you go, no matter what you do, there are standards. At my job, I have a standard of performance I must follow in order to keep myself from getting fired. You must be trained to drive in order to get a license. Again, rules and regulations have to be set because we all have to have something to go by.

I do not think there are any better ways to deal with immigration when you have hundreds of thousands of people who want to immigrate to your country every year. Some people who are not legit are going to get through, that's just life. But there has to be a judge, and that judge can't be you or I.

[Sprailenes 47]

Preach it sistah.

[moni_calla 0]

Canada should receive preferential treatment when immigrating the the US for family based situations

Yes I do think that certain countries should be fast tracked but I was not specific but now I will be specific: Canada should be fast tracked as most people who even consider immigrating to the US from Canada are not going their to obtain assistance or milk the system they are going for employment, school or love. Canada should receive preferential treatment, uh discrimination happens every day and me posting my opinion won't stop that.

Edited June 16, 2009 by moni_calla

[Udella&Wiz 325]

Canada should receive preferential treatment when immigrating the the US for family based situations

Yes I do think that certain countries should be fast tracked but I was not specific but now I will be specific: Canada should be fast tracked as most people who even consider immigrating to the US from Canada are not going their to obtain assistance or milk the system they are going for employment, school or love. Canada should receive preferential treatment, uh discrimination happens every day and me posting my opinion won't stop that.

And now - the ranting replies will come................large can of worms just opened

[moni_calla 0]

Debating is my speciality!!!