More Than 1.1 Million Fewer Americans on Food Stamps Under Trump

[spookyturtle 9,465]

28 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Lots of dumb people vote 

How true. Look how many people voted for Trump! 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

11 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

oh you mean products like food, formula and services like housing and childcare? 

Well, obviously anyone on welfare is dumb. Duh. You have to realize that most of the world isn't high class, well off, educated and superior like us VJ'ers. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

7 minutes ago, spookyturtle said:

Well, obviously anyone on welfare is dumb. Duh. You have to realize that most of the world isn't high class, well off, educated and superior like us VJ'ers. 

we have the best people

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, spookyturtle said:

How true. Look how many people voted for Trump! 

That was low hanging fruit 

[spookyturtle 9,465]

10 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

That was low hanging fruit 

Lots of that here. 

[IAMX 3,055]

45 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

That was low hanging fruit 

Free™

[OriZ 3,157]

[Teddy B 17,251]

15 hours ago, smilesammich said:

maybe you're a bit removed from how food stamps work in the us and who receives them;

http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/05/24/529831472/trump-wants-families-on-food-stamps-to-get-jobs-the-majority-already-work

From the article in your link:

 

Quote

 

When President Trump's budget director, Mick Mulvaney, unveiled the administration's budget blueprint earlier this week, which calls for significant cuts to food stamps, he noted that the aim of the budget was to get people working.

"If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, we need you to go to work. If you're on disability insurance and you're not supposed to be — if you're not truly disabled, we need you to go back to work," Mulvaney said Tuesday.

But the reality is, many people (44 percent) who rely on SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, as food stamps is now known — have at least one person in the family working, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

And when it comes to families on SNAP with kids, a majority — 55 percent — are bringing home wages, according to USDA. The problem is, those wages aren't enough to actually live on.

That jibes with what Feeding America, a network of U.S. food banks, found in 2014 when it issued Hunger in America, a comprehensive report on who uses food pantries and why. It found that 54 percent of the families who turn to pantries to help put food on the table have at least one member working, and that rate was much higher, 71 percent, for households with kids.

 

 

 

In fact, SNAP already requires able-bodied adults without children to find a job within three months and to work at least 20 hours a week or lose their benefits. All told, about 42 million people receive SNAP benefits.

As it turns out, many of the working poor who rely on SNAP benefits to get enough to eat are actually employed in the food industry. As we've reported, an analysis from University of California, Berkeley Labor Center found that 52 percent of fast-food workers are enrolled in, or have their families enrolled in, one or more public assistance programs such as SNAP, Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program.

 

The fact that approx 50% of people who receive gov't assistance are employed in jobs that don't pay a wage high enough to live on should be all the proof anyone needs that minimum wage needs to higher. Why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize businesses that are too cheap to pay their workers a living wage? The thought that raising the minimum wage would cause successful companies to go out of business is nothing but a fallacy put out by these cheap companies to brainwash the general public into thinking this way. And for the few companies that do go out of business, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things when the taxpayers are already subsidizing those businesses to begin with. If they can't turn a profit without looking to the gov't to subsidize their payroll, then they shouldn't be in business to begin with.

 

Raise the minimum wage to a livable wage and get these people off of gov't assistance. Allow them to work and give them the pride of providing for their families without needing a hand out to survive. The amount of people who will no longer require gov't assistance to survive will far outweigh any negatives of raising the minimum wage.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Teddy B

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, Teddy B said:

From the article in your link:

 

The fact that approx 50% of people who receive gov't assistance are employed in jobs that don't pay a wage high enough to live on should be all the proof anyone needs that minimum wage needs to higher. Why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize businesses that are too cheap to pay their workers a living wage? The thought that raising the minimum wage would cause successful companies to go out of business is nothing but a fallacy put out by these cheap companies to brainwash the general public into thinking this way. And for the few companies that do go out of business, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things when the taxpayers are already subsidizing those businesses to begin with. If they can't turn a profit without looking to the gov't to subsidize their payroll, then they shouldn't be in business to begin with.

 

Raise the minimum wage to a livable wage and get these people off of gov't assistance. Allow them to work and give them the pride of providing for their families without needing a hand out to survive.

agreed. i've said it before but, when i was a kid - my mom and my dad managed to raise three kids on one income and neither my mom or dad have a degree, nothing past a high school diploma. that's simply not doable anymore, something's got to give.

i saw a reba episode the other day, even reba was signing up for food stamps. lol.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 hours ago, IAMX said:

Free™

I like to give the MDL. A freebie from time to time . It's my outcome based  education no child left behind posting model 

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, Teddy B said:

From the article in your link:

 

The fact that approx 50% of people who receive gov't assistance are employed in jobs that don't pay a wage high enough to live on should be all the proof anyone needs that minimum wage needs to higher. Why should the taxpayers continue to subsidize businesses that are too cheap to pay their workers a living wage? The thought that raising the minimum wage would cause successful companies to go out of business is nothing but a fallacy put out by these cheap companies to brainwash the general public into thinking this way. And for the few companies that do go out of business, what difference does it make in the grand scheme of things when the taxpayers are already subsidizing those businesses to begin with. If they can't turn a profit without looking to the gov't to subsidize their payroll, then they shouldn't be in business to begin with.

 

Raise the minimum wage to a livable wage and get these people off of gov't assistance. Allow them to work and give them the pride of providing for their families without needing a hand out to survive. The amount of people who will no longer require gov't assistance to survive will far outweigh any negatives of raising the minimum wage.

Well, if you raised minimum wage and prices rose accordingly, wouldn't those people still need assistance to keep up with the cost of goods?

1 hour ago, smilesammich said:

agreed. i've said it before but, when i was a kid - my mom and my dad managed to raise three kids on one income and neither my mom or dad have a degree, nothing past a high school diploma. that's simply not doable anymore, something's got to give.

i saw a reba episode the other day, even reba was signing up for food stamps. lol.

I don't think that's a problem that government regulation can fix. The issue is one I've gone on record pointing out my qualms with several times; Companies only caring about what high education you have and not your actual skill or talent. It's definitely a problem that should be addressed, should start by not trying to convince everyone that high ed is the only way to go.

[IAMX 3,055]

1 minute ago, OriZ said:

Well, if you raised minimum wage and prices rose accordingly, wouldn't those people still need assistance to keep up with the cost of goods?

I don't think that's a problem that government regulation can fix. The issue is one I've gone on record pointing out my qualms with several times; Companies only caring about what high education you have and not your actual skill or talent. It's definitely a problem that should be addressed, should start by not trying to convince everyone that high ed is the only way to go.

Especially since so many companies want to waste money on hilariously stupid things like sensitivity training. 

Edited August 9, 2017 by IAMX

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, OriZ said:

 

I don't think that's a problem that government regulation can fix. The issue is one I've gone on record pointing out my qualms with several times; Companies only caring about what high education you have and not your actual skill or talent. It's definitely a problem that should be addressed, should start by not trying to convince everyone that high ed is the only way to go.

imo, higher education is in a state of disarray because it is now a commodity and those who can afford a diploma, receive one. it has little to do with effort or earning proper grades. that being said, genuine higher education and refined skills are most certainly needed as we devolve into idiocracy. the idea that lower skilled workers don't deserve a living wage in some backwards puritan sense, or that lower skilled workers can only take, not enrich, a growing economy, is propaganda. 

4 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Especially since so many companies want to waste money on hilariously stupid things like sensitivity training. 

tell poor people what food to eat, tell companies how to train their employees. frrreeedum!

[Teddy B 17,251]

3 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Well, if you raised minimum wage and prices rose accordingly, wouldn't those people still need assistance to keep up with the cost of goods?

How much do you think the average company that hires a high percentage of minimum wage employees would have to raise their prices to cover the costs? I'm thinking maybe a nickel or a dime per item, but even if it's a dollar per item, I don't see that breaking a person making $15hr, do you? And God forbid a company like Walmart should pay for the pay hike out of their profits.

[Teddy B 17,251]

10 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Especially since so many companies want to waste money on hilariously stupid things like sensitivity training.