Why are people mad that you have to work for Food Stamps / WIC?

a reply to: andy06shake

It's called hud it has a long waiting list in most areas .

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420

Subscribing to the fallacious idea that having children is just a burden on your awesome freedom and not the greatest thing you could ever do...

people have more kids when they feel more secure, what is more secure than the federal government paying for everything for you. THAT'S why they have more kids, because their basic needs are met, not gaming the system (although there are SOME that do). you could be the richest person in the world and end up with a drug addicted prick for a kid... or be in the lowest poverty level and have you kids grow up to be great things... the fallacy is that it is not where or under what conditions you raise them, but the values you raise them with. unfortunately the media and public school undermined the latter part in a big way.

While I agree that kids can become drug addicts or very productive members of society, I just wouldn’t feel right taking from the government (taxpayers money) to continue to have more children that I could not provide for on my own; and the only burden I feel is sad that I couldn’t provide an even better life for my only child, but I’m working hard on it!

For the record I have no Freedom because I chose not to, I love caring for my son. I had him at 36 years old (did all my partying beforehand), and I had a great job with great benefits. My company paid for his birth, not the taxpayers, I paid for his daycare for years while I worked 12 hour days. His dad got hooked on oxy after a car accident (not my fault); and to be quite honest, I see these lazy ass women going out clubbing all the time leaving their kids alone. I have never done that, so please don’t judge me.

a reply to: proteus33

Cheers.

Sounds horrendous, how long does it take to get a house for the average person?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

In the Army, E-4 and below soldiers who start a family are immediately referred to WIC while the wife is pregnant, and thereafter because WIC is contingent on income and an E-4 soldier and below are seen as financially unable to meet all the necessary requirements.

Guess all those people are lazy bums who didn't earn it like you did right?

You can actually get away with WIC at an E5, I kno 😉

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: projectvxn

I think your a little too trusting or you have never actually been around the inner city culture to know how bad the abuse is? Entire generations of families raised knowing nothing but living on handouts and not having any motivation to dig themselves out of it. It's far more pervasive than you think.

Use to live in the Victoria Courts back in the day, not a nice place.

Even to this day, not much has change. It really is an issue, perhapes even at crisis levels, not in the general sense, as we expect, but more so, sleeper populations

a reply to: JAGStorm

There's two reasons.

First: If government is supplying the labor, then people who would otherwise be doing those jobs get pushed out of the job pool. It's the same reason as to why prison labor is a bad idea, it pays below market just to have people doing something and eliminates work for others to do.

Second: It pays below market and after outside considerations like child care and transportation it pays very below market. Minimum wage is $7.45 and higher in some places, but these plans are often for 20 hours of work per month. $7.45*20 is $149 but the typical SNAP allotment is only $100, and if you're single with no kids or other income it might be as low as $50. Is it fair to make someone work 20 hours in order to only be compensated $50?

So the typical response to that point, is that you work based on how much you recieve. Aside from the fact that that's illegal, and aside from the first point that it effectively institutes specific jobs as minimum wage and only minimum wage, lets take the $50 example, that's a bit under 7 hours per month which is 2 hours per week. Travel normally dicates an hour commute each way, so that's +2 hours per day. You still in effect put someone on the clock for 14 hours in order to collect their 7 hours of pay.

Put simply, it just isn't a fair exchange of time for labor. And it also disrupts the process of looking for a job elsewhere.

Oh, and a third reason... many on food stamps are already working 40 hours a week at jobs like Walmart. Is it fair to make them work another few hours a week for food stamps, when their job should be providing a sufficient wage in the first place?

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
yeah...for $200 PER WEEK in groceries AKA about $800 per month or around $10/hr.

No one gets $200 per week in assistance. A 3 person family (2 adults/1 kid) doesn't even qualify for $200 per month.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
As opposed to a straight up handout? Yes, yes it does. Those of us with guile work 40+ hours per week to see a couple hundred of our earnings leaving our paychecks to subsidize the parasitic welfare system, so what's the problem here?

Because working is so difficult? Work is a joke in most decent jobs.

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: smkymcnugget420

In the Army, E-4 and below soldiers who start a family are immediately referred to WIC while the wife is pregnant, and thereafter because WIC is contingent on income and an E-4 soldier and below are seen as financially unable to meet all the necessary requirements.

Guess all those people are lazy bums who didn't earn it like you did right?

You can actually get away with WIC at an E5, I kno 😉

Absolutely. It's more common for E4 and below, but some locales are so expensive that WIC is a necessity fer soldier even some of the higher enlisted grades.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
For the able bodied, there simply is no excuse why they should not work at least part time for it. Beneficial to the community and beneficial to them. Going to school should be an acceptable substitute for the work, but only if they actually attend and get passing grades. For those not academically inclined, the trades pay very well and learning a trade could be another bonus for the person.

The trades have no future. Passing grades are not a good metric because that encourages easy classes, and perhaps less economically sustainable majors. It also severely punishes people who go to less expensive schools that practice grade deflation, which is a very popular trend among the average to below average schools.

For example, one of the Universities I attended was inexpensive and below average, but has one of the best programs in the world for my particular field of study. I had professors who would only give two grades, D- and F. Most people would get through those classes with an F and then appeal it with the dean and have the grade changed to a D-. Those types of professors exist, and are very bad for any sort of scholarship.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
It would be interesting to see the statistics on how many public assistance people eventually got off the program and for how long, how many had more kids etc. I think it would be very telling.

Not sure. I'll give you my story though. Started college at 18, failed out at 19 due to issues stemming from what I would later learn was a disability. Got on disability at 20, lived that way for a couple years and decided I didn't want that to be my whole life. Went back to school at 22. Was in school until 35. Picked up 6 degrees in 13 years. Recruited directly out of school (actually, when I had 1 year left to go) for a 100k/year job in an area where rents are $500/month.

In the year since I've been working that job I've had the opportunity to hire two people. Both people I hired were on public assistance. The jobs I got them, got them both off of it.

So, that's 3 for 3 right there. None of us have kids.

a reply to: GENERAL EYES

That's because the anti welfare crowd has argued that the welfare system shouldn't be used to support adults. It should only be used to support children. That's why people like you don't get help while someone else is encouraged to pump out kids.

originally posted by: fleabit
While I agree if you can work without it causing further issues, some provisions should be made. For example - say a younger single parent in Colorado has to work 20 hours a week. Daycare for that week would be around 100.00 (based on average daycare costs in Colorado). Would it even be worth it? You have to subtract earnings from your monthly allotment as well, so they would get even less.

So I don't think without some changes for certain situations, it makes sense for every person. It might provide next to nothing based on your situation - or even be a loss, so pointless (and useless).

I think people should absolutely work if able and it makes sense - I've worked all except 30 days since I was 15 years old.. so decades of non-stop jobs. But I still think compassion and common sense should prevail.

The system is set up so that you lose $1 in aid for every $2 you earn. On the surface that sounds like a good system, but in practice it's not.

To start with, that $2 you earn is your pre tax rate. So if you make $100/month and are paying 15% in taxes, you take home $85. But you earned $100 so you lose $50. Now your takehome is $35. If you paid $15 in transportation and $10 in food, now your takehome is $10 for that work. Where a person who had no assistance would still have $60 take home from that work.

In essence, the formulas are extremely punitive. They should be adjusted so that the 50% reduction is after taxes and reasonable working expenses are subtracted.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Yeah WIC is amazing, I think all mothers and children should be able to get it if they're even middle class - it's good wholesome food, encourages healthier eating, they provide education and add a little extra care to your little ones life. Anyone demonizing wic is a demon themselves, ha.

EBT, a bit tough. The current economy, you can about expect that someone can find a job. Economies that the previous couple presidents were over... Not so much.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
www.washingtonpost.com... 439443

Somebody please explain to me why this is a bad thing. If you are an able bodied adult, why can't you work? A 20 hour work week is nothing. My son works 14-15 hours some work day and you are telling me a person can't work that in a week? A week!
Where I live there are help wanted signs everywhere, seriously, you could be blindfolded and throw a dart and hit a place that is hiring.

I've had friends post on FB and other sites that they are angry that one must work to stay on these programs.

I'm not against the downtrodden, and I know there are people that have just had bad luck and are in a bad place. I don't think providing and endless supply of food for an endless period will help anything (we aren't talking disabled etc.)

A question for a question...

Why do CEO's of failed Corps get a # ton of money when they fail?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: GENERAL EYES

That's because the anti welfare crowd has argued that the welfare system shouldn't be used to support adults. It should only be used to support children. That's why people like you don't get help while someone else is encouraged to pump out kids.

No doubt children and Motherhood is a wonderful thing and tradition, don't get me wrong on that front.

Lots of misconceptions about the nature of Welfare, which, as a rule I am a proponent of, provided there is genuine need and the person or persons (including children) are being good citizens and not involving themselves in untoward and or criminal activity.

I think a lot of the hostility (including my own) is that whereas others who are genuinely suffering trying to make ends meet especially the elderly or disabled are overlooked in favor of the Almighty Babies.

originally posted by: MemoryShock
A question for a question...

Why do CEO's of failed Corps get a # ton of money when they fail?

Because they have enough leverage at the time of being hired to negotiate it into their employment contract.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
I think a lot of the hostility (including my own) is that whereas others who are genuinely suffering trying to make ends meet especially the elderly or disabled are overlooked in favor of the Almighty Babies.

That was the only way to get the right to agree to any welfare at all. And those reforms were signed in by Bill Clinton. It's just a lot easier to politically say welfare goes to help hungry kids than out of work adults.

This is one of the main gripes behind needing to expand our social safety nets.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Why.... Really you don't know why....

Basically you approve of slave labor....

originally posted by: JAGStorm
www.washingtonpost.com... 439443

Somebody please explain to me why this is a bad thing. If you are an able bodied adult, why can't you work? A 20 hour work week is nothing. My son works 14-15 hours some work day and you are telling me a person can't work that in a week? A week!
Where I live there are help wanted signs everywhere, seriously, you could be blindfolded and throw a dart and hit a place that is hiring.

I've had friends post on FB and other sites that they are angry that one must work to stay on these programs.

I'm not against the downtrodden, and I know there are people that have just had bad luck and are in a bad place. I don't think providing and endless supply of food for an endless period will help anything (we aren't talking disabled etc.)

It shouldn't be an issue. We should have the cleanest streets, the most well staffed soup kitchens, etc. There's a lot of work to be done for the good of the community. It's the least that can be done for what the community is giving to them.