PDA

View Full Version : Starving in America



George Jung
04-12-2015, 09:23 AM
It seems that, as the economy rebounds, states are paring back the food-stamp rolls. Wondering out loud - how is this going to work?


"At its core is a basic question: As the economy improves, should states continue waivers that were enacted during the recession to allow healthy adults who are not working to get food stamps longer than the law’s time limit? Maine is one of the states that say no.
Last year, the administration of Gov. Paul R. LePage, a Republican, decided to reimpose a three-month limit (out of every three-year period) on food stamps for a group often known as Abawds — able-bodied adults without minor dependents — unless they work 20 hours per week, take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week. Maine, like other states, makes some exceptions.
“You’ve got to incentivize employment, create goals and create time limits on these welfare programs,” said Mary Mayhew, the commissioner of health and human services in Maine. She said the measure was in line with Mr. LePage’s efforts to reform welfare."


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/politics/states-tighten-conditions-for-receiving-food-stamps-as-the-economy-improves.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

ahp
04-12-2015, 10:48 AM
Work at what? Do they have marketable skills? Take training? Where? How far away? They have transportation?

Down here county government can get prison labor for $2/hr. Scooping up more prisoners solves all the problems. The Soviet Union did that, and the ancient Romans, why can't we?

Canoeyawl
04-12-2015, 11:33 AM
" take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week. Maine, like other states, makes some exceptions"

This sounds like socialism. Reminds me of Roosevelt's CCC.

George Jung
04-12-2015, 01:03 PM
Socialism? That's a new turn.

ahp
04-12-2015, 03:03 PM
" take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week. Maine, like other states, makes some exceptions"

This sounds like socialism. Reminds me of Roosevelt's CCC.

The CCC really worked. I had a technician working for me. He came from a big Polish family in Connecticut. After he graduated from HS there were no jobs. His dad worked on WPA, which put bread on the table but not much more. He signed up with CCC for two years and was a surveyor's assistant on a flood control dam project. He liked it. After two years he came out, look around and things were not much better and he signed up for two more years. After that we were gearing up for WWII and he went into the Navy.

CCC built lots of things:lodges, roads, trails for the National Parks. A lot of it was "make work" but it had lasting value.

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 03:10 PM
It seems that, as the economy rebounds, states are paring back the food-stamp rolls. Wondering out loud - how is this going to work?



"At its core is a basic question: As the economy improves, should states continue waivers that were enacted during the recession to allow healthy adults who are not working to get food stamps longer than the law’s time limit? Maine is one of the states that say no.
Last year, the administration of Gov. Paul R. LePage, a Republican, decided to reimpose a three-month limit (out of every three-year period) on food stamps for a group often known as Abawds — able-bodied adults without minor dependents — unless they work 20 hours per week, take state job-training courses or volunteer for about six hours per week. Maine, like other states, makes some exceptions.
“You’ve got to incentivize employment, create goals and create time limits on these welfare programs,” said Mary Mayhew, the commissioner of health and human services in Maine. She said the measure was in line with Mr. LePage’s efforts to reform welfare."






http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/politics/states-tighten-conditions-for-receiving-food-stamps-as-the-economy-improves.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


Does one think it unfair to ask somebody to volunteer for less than a single day a week in return for assistance?

Should everyone be entitled to live for 'free' off society and provide nothing in return, not even volunteer work?

peb
04-12-2015, 03:12 PM
It seems that, as the economy rebounds, states are paring back the food-stamp rolls. Wondering out loud - how is this going to work?



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/us/politics/states-tighten-conditions-for-receiving-food-stamps-as-the-economy-improves.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

You are saying that requiring an able bodied adult to volunteer 6 hours a week is going to cause starvation? This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread titles ever on this forum.

Paul Pless
04-12-2015, 03:25 PM
Does one think it unfair to ask somebody to volunteer for less than a single day a week in return for assistance?

Should everyone be entitled to live for 'free' off society and provide nothing in return, not even volunteer work?look at it another way, public assistance is there to prevent the mob from rioting

- or -

look at it this way, isn't feeding the poor the christian thing to do? aren't republicans and tea party types always harping on about this being a nation founded on christian values and morals??

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 03:30 PM
look at it another way, public assistance is there to prevent the mob from rioting

- or -

look at this, isn't feeding the poor the christian thing to do? aren't republicans and tea party types always harping on about this being a nation founded on christian values and morals??

Not just 'Christian',

Feeding the hungry and helping the poor is an integral part of the Islamic faith -- every year, its followers are required to pay an obligatory charity tax to help those in need. Throughout the Holy Qur'an and hadiths, which are a collection of sayings and actions of Prophet Muhammad, the Muslim is called to feed the hungry and help those in need, regardless of race, religion or background. Mind you ISIS fanatics possibly tend to overlook that.

Nevertheless, would you answer the questions:

Does one think it unfair to ask somebody to volunteer for less than a single day a week in return for assistance?

Should everyone be entitled to live for 'free' off society and provide nothing in return, not even volunteer work?

Paul Pless
04-12-2015, 03:45 PM
Nevertheless, would you answer the questions:

Does one think it unfair to ask somebody to volunteer for less than a single day a week in return for assistance?

I could give a **** either way, from a pure efficiency of both markets and lessening of bureaucracy standpoint all govt assistance, whether food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment benefits extensions, what have you, should all be paid in cash.


Should everyone be entitled to live for 'free' off society and provide nothing in return, not even volunteer work?No, the very rich should pay their fair share of taxes for reaping the benefits of living in a society which subsidies their existence. :)

George Jung
04-12-2015, 04:53 PM
A few are reading views into my OP that I don't hold. Thanks, peb, Rummy.

I think everyone should have some 'skin' in the game, and view the perpetual welfare state some live in a failing, though 'how to break the cycle' is unclear, to me. Requiring volunteering in order to receive foodstamps, is fine, by me - but if any of my critics bothered to read the article, the problem is - not enough 'volunteer' positions to meet 'the need'. What do you propose in those majority instances? "Let them eat cake'?

George Jung
04-12-2015, 04:55 PM
You are saying that requiring an able bodied adult to volunteer 6 hours a week is going to cause starvation? This has to be one of the most ridiculous thread titles ever on this forum.

Show me where I said that. Methinks you're letting your personal dislike for me color your perceptions and comments.

Paul Pless
04-12-2015, 05:04 PM
A few are reading views into my OP that I don't hold. Thanks, peb, Rummy.
you expected less?

Sky Blue
04-12-2015, 05:13 PM
your personal dislike for me

Mr. Jung, I can't think of any reason why any person on this forum would have a sincere personal dislike for you. You've started a couple of provocative threads today that people have responded to and/or disagreed with, and you have imputed ill motive for their having done so in both threads. It seems to me that you are the one reading stuff in.

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 05:19 PM
A few are reading views into my OP that I don't hold. Thanks, peb, Rummy.

I think everyone should have some 'skin' in the game, and view the perpetual welfare state some live in a failing, though 'how to break the cycle' is unclear, to me. Requiring volunteering in order to receive foodstamps, is fine, by me - but if any of my critics bothered to read the article, the problem is - not enough 'volunteer' positions to meet 'the need'. What do you propose in those majority instances? "Let them eat cake'?
Georgey, I never said that you did. I raised some questions for discussion. :ycool:

Do any/many of the current beneficiaries do any volunteer work.
I am sure that the service clubs e.g. Rotary, Lions, etc have or could organise lots of community projects that require a lot of hands on effort. etc etc
Beautification of one's environment can/does help general morale.

George Jung
04-12-2015, 05:32 PM
Actually, it appears you did. Regardless - volunteering for Lions, etc. would have to be 'approved' in order to qualify for stamps. And how many such positions do you know of? The OP is talking about 10's of thousands suddenly without support. There's been no effort to make such an arrangement - only the discontinuation of the benefits. I don't see how that one has a chance of success.

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 05:39 PM
Actually, it appears you did. Regardless - volunteering for Lions, etc. would have to be 'approved' in order to qualify for stamps. And how many such positions do you know of? The OP is talking about 10's of thousands suddenly without support. There's been no effort to make such an arrangement - only the discontinuation of the benefits. I don't see how that one has a chance of success.

My response was not intended to be a full in-depth proposal and complete catch-all solution with comprehensive plans, encompassing full references, together with lists of Departments involved together with check lists etc etc . . . . ad infinitum.

As it is/was, it was an initial reply showing that there are some avenues available - no more no less.
If you took it to be otherwise, then that is your problem not mine. :rolleyes:

George Jung
04-12-2015, 05:43 PM
So... you got nothing, eh?

I figgered.

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 05:59 PM
So... you got nothing, eh?

I figgered.

Why do you ask a question and then attack persons that give solutions or suggestions towards a solution(s) ?

I set out partial solutions and avenues to the issue, which is a darn sight more then the 'nothing' (Wondering out loud - how is this going to work?) you had in the OP. :ycool:

George Jung
04-12-2015, 06:15 PM
Alright - I'll give the benefit of the doubt- though lets be honest - you haven't been 'attacked'. But I don't see how that rectifies what appears may be a nasty outcome, suffered by those least able to adjust. I'm all for 'accountability', 'skin in the game' - however you wish to express it. Cutting benefits, with no alternative/guidance to employment/opportunity to 'volunteer', makes no sense to me. The few positions you mentioned fall far short of need. Not much of an improvement over my 'wondering out loud'.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-12-2015, 06:47 PM
It seems all you lefties forget how being poor is fun. All those food stamp people living the life of Riley. Just lying around eating bonbon's and smoking weed.

S.V. Airlie
04-12-2015, 07:08 PM
I see nothing wrong with having able bodied unemployed work six hours a week if they chose the work that could help them find a job they are good at.
It solves at least two problems:
Improve or gain experience. People want applicants to have some experience even with college degrees.
A bit of a pay back to society.

They will have to miss episodes of The Kardashians though!:)

peb
04-12-2015, 07:15 PM
A few are reading views into my OP that I don't hold. Thanks, peb, Rummy.

I think everyone should have some 'skin' in the game, and view the perpetual welfare state some live in a failing, though 'how to break the cycle' is unclear, to me. Requiring volunteering in order to receive foodstamps, is fine, by me - but if any of my critics bothered to read the article, the problem is - not enough 'volunteer' positions to meet 'the need'. What do you propose in those majority instances? "Let them eat cake'?

You title a thread "starving in America", your only comment is questioning how it work out, and you c&p a paragraph that has nothing to do with your one concern, which is mentioned in one sentence in the entire article. And you accuse us of reading views into your OP that you don't hold. What, are we suppose to read you fracking mind from over the internet?

Quit digging yourself in deeper.

George Jung
04-12-2015, 07:19 PM
You seem a bit wound, peb. Take a chill-pill. And if my posts bother you so much - put me on ignore. I'd like that.

S.V. Airlie
04-12-2015, 07:21 PM
George, I have had no problem finding vol. jobs. I have two currently and I only talked to two people. Yesterday, at the local Earth Fair, I asked a third person if he would like to have a vol. work for the Land Trust. His response was, "damn'd tooten! We would love it!"

George Jung
04-12-2015, 07:24 PM
Undoubtedly. What's not a given - will those volunteer jobs satisfy the requirement re: maintaining foodstamps? By the story, only those working for the food pantry were given a pass. But it doesn't address any other options.

S.V. Airlie
04-12-2015, 07:28 PM
I'd have to see the requirements. Varies by state I'm sure! I personally would be happy with those in this position to vol. for any job, a job is a job.

George Jung
04-12-2015, 07:30 PM
Oh, I'd agree. Unfortunately, neither of us is in charge.

peb
04-12-2015, 08:03 PM
You seem a bit wound, peb. Take a chill-pill. And if my posts bother you so much - put me on ignore. I'd like that.



Nothing bothered me. You like to tell me how to behave, guess that's your prerogative if that's how you get your kicks.

Please note though, when you wrote a sarcastic (and unjustified)comment to me, I simply pointed out how weak your OP was with respect to clarity.

Rum_Pirate
04-12-2015, 08:30 PM
I could give a **** either way, from a pure efficiency of both markets and lessening of bureaucracy standpoint all govt assistance, whether food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment benefits extensions, what have you, should all be paid in cash.

http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Rum_Pirate http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png
(http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4509582#post4509582)Should everyone be entitled to live for 'free' off society and provide nothing in return, not even volunteer work?
No, the very rich should pay their fair share of taxes for reaping the benefits of living in a society which subsidies their existence. :)

. . . and the poor should reap the benefits of living in a society which subsidies their existence with no effort on their behalf. :rolleyes:

George Jung
04-12-2015, 10:35 PM
another interesting tangent:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/business/economy/working-but-needing-public-assistance-anyway.html?mabReward=A7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine



A home health care worker in Durham, N.C.; a McDonald’s cashier in Chicago; a bank teller in New York; an adjunct professor in Mayfield, Ill. They are all evidence of an improving economy, because they are working and not among the steadily declining ranks of the unemployed.
Yet these same people also are on public assistance — relying on food stamps, Medicaid (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/medicaid/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) or other stretches of the safety net to help cover basic expenses when their paychecks come up short.
And they are not alone. Nearly three-quarters of the people helped by programs geared to the poor are members of a family headed by a worker, according to a new study (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-low-wages) by the Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education (http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/) at the University of California. As a result, taxpayers are providing not only support to the poor but also, in effect, a huge subsidy for employers of low-wage workers, from giants like McDonald’s and Walmart to mom-and-pop businesses.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/business/economy/middle-class-but-feeling-economically-insecure.html)
“This is a hidden cost of low-wage work,” said Ken Jacobs, chairman of the Berkeley center and a co-author of the report, which is scheduled for release on Monday.
Working families were the biggest beneficiaries of federal programs aimed at the poor in all but six states, a recent study finds.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2015/04/12/wage-map/d8b202bcbbcb63a0ba07ac3b733c19e7a871935a/0413bizWAGEweb-Artboard_1.pngWorking families’ share of
federal safety net programs


Annual average, 2009 to 2011

40%

45

50

55

60

65

ME

N.H.

WA

VT

MT

N.D.

OR

MI

MA

ID

N.Y.

WI

S.D.

R.I.

WY

MI

CT

PA

IA

NE

OH

NV

N.J.

UT

IL

IN

W.VA

CO

DE

KA

VA

MO

CA

MD

KY

N.C.

TN

AZ

OK

N.M.

S.C.

AR

AL

GA

MS

TX

LA

AK

FL

HI

Highest
67%

Lowest
44%





Note: The study included Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, the earned-income tax credit and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Source: U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education
APRIL 12, 2015
By The New York Times

Taxpayers pick up the difference, he said, between what employers pay and what is required to cover what most Americans consider essential living costs.

skuthorp
04-13-2015, 05:57 AM
another interesting tangent:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/business/economy/working-but-needing-public-assistance-anyway.html?mabReward=A7&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine

American socialism, subsidising profits.

PeterSibley
04-13-2015, 06:34 AM
American socialism, subsidising profits.

A good business model comrade.

Paul Pless
04-13-2015, 06:51 AM
. . . and the poor should reap the benefits of living in a society which subsidies their existence with no effort on their behalf. :rolleyes:

I think you help people, if that's your goal, without regard for some return from them. A requirement for some charitable work is onerous both to the recipient of the aid as well as to those who would administer such a program, making it more expensive to give aid. Further, it might well cost quite a significant amount of money for some aid recipients, especially the rural poor, to actually get to where they could offer charitable work.

S.V. Airlie
04-13-2015, 10:16 AM
I don't see the word "charitable" work until Paul's post. Don't think work required has to be charitable work. Having been an EMT/fireman vol. I gave more than I received! I got to drive the ambulance!:) PS, also had to pay for my own equipment even.

Paul Pless
04-13-2015, 10:23 AM
The OP stated 'volunteer work'; I equate that with 'charitable work'.

Captain Intrepid
04-13-2015, 12:12 PM
in your own favorite vernacular


FART !

It never fails to sadden me how much distain some people have for the less advantaged.

Kevin T
04-13-2015, 12:21 PM
It never fails to sadden me how much distain some people have for the less advantaged.

Agreed, but then again, one must never underestimate the "I got mine and screw you" approach many people seem to take, if not downright favor. We see it here every single day.

Captain Intrepid
04-13-2015, 12:30 PM
There's a certain part of the American psyche that stresses the idea that a person is solely responsible for their successes and their failures. The business owner who depends on government provided sewage, electricity, water, transportation, trade incentives, grants, business incentives and technology, with a clear conscience proclaims they are "self made" and chides the government for "just getting in their way". The same person then blames the poor for being poor. It's sick.

purri
04-13-2015, 06:50 PM
It's "trending" the same around Oz.
There's a certain part of the American psyche that stresses the idea that a person is solely responsible for their successes and their failures. The business owner who depends on government provided sewage, electricity, water, transportation, trade incentives, grants, business incentives and technology, with a clear conscience proclaims they are "self made" and chides the government for "just getting in their way". The same person then blames the poor for being poor. It's sick.