500K+ to lose SNAP benefits as 22 states bring back work requirements

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/us/politics/thousands-could-lose-food-stamps-as-states-restore-pre-recession-requirements.html?ribbon-ad-idx=11&rref=politics&module=Ribbon&version=context&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&pgtype=article

TL;DR -

On January 1st, 2016, 22 states brought back the 3-month time limit that able-bodied adults without dependents can draw SNAP benefits, in addition to the 18 that already had them (mostly imposed 2013-2015).

About 45 million people are dependent on SNAP, and more than 500,000 could lose those benefits this year, with many losing them yesterday, April 1st, as they hit the 3-month limit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Bojack Horseman]

When will they learn that workfare is a form of slavery?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Vile.

[Derpist]

So only 1% of SNAP recipients actually fail the work requirement...

Ought to throw cold-water both on conservatives who rail against SNAP and liberals who rail against the work requirement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Vile.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

Okay, but...in many communities, and for many people, there simply aren't jobs to be found. Do you honestly think there's a significant constituency of people who would rather live on SNAP than work and get paid decently? And don't give me this 'TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~' bullsh**t; the people this is affecting don't have dependents to TEACH A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~ to.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

Okay, but...in many communities, and for many people, there simply aren't jobs to be found. Do you honestly think there's a significant constituency of people who would rather live on SNAP than work and get paid decently? And don't give me this 'TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~' bullsh**t; the people this is affecting don't have dependents to TEACH A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~ to.

I have the interesting situation of having a parent who teaches in a poorer part of the state capitol. I'm not going into details, but I can assure you that people on welfare do have kids, and it is not unheard of for those kids to literally look forward to living on welfare. Granted, MN is more generous than a lot of states when it comes to welfare, but still.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

Okay, but...in many communities, and for many people, there simply aren't jobs to be found. Do you honestly think there's a significant constituency of people who would rather live on SNAP than work and get paid decently? And don't give me this 'TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~' bullsh**t; the people this is affecting don't have dependents to TEACH A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~ to.

I have the interesting situation of having a parent who teaches in a poorer part of the state capitol. I'm not going into details, but I can assure you that people on welfare do have kids, and it is not unheard of for those kids to literally look forward to living on welfare. Granted, MN is more generous than a lot of states when it comes to welfare, but still.

Well...fine, but 1. kids have a tendency to look forward to any number of really undesirable things about their parents' lives, 2. this policy doesn't affect people with kids anyway, and 3. if even a few people are unjustly kicked off their only means of getting food, it doesn't really matter how many people are 'justly' kicked off, does it? On top of everything else it's not like the sort of assistance one gets with SNAP is particularly, uh, good.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

Okay, but...in many communities, and for many people, there simply aren't jobs to be found. Do you honestly think there's a significant constituency of people who would rather live on SNAP than work and get paid decently? And don't give me this 'TEACHING THEIR CHILDREN A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~' bullsh**t; the people this is affecting don't have dependents to TEACH A ~BAD WORK ETHIC~ to.

I have the interesting situation of having a parent who teaches in a poorer part of the state capitol. I'm not going into details, but I can assure you that people on welfare do have kids, and it is not unheard of for those kids to literally look forward to living on welfare. Granted, MN is more generous than a lot of states when it comes to welfare, but still.

Well...fine, but 1. kids have a tendency to look forward to any number of really undesirable things about their parents' lives, 2. this policy doesn't affect people with kids anyway, and 3. if even a few people are unjustly kicked off their only means of getting food, it doesn't really matter how many people are 'justly' kicked off, does it? On top of everything else it's not like the sort of assistance one gets with SNAP is particularly, uh, good.

I would never use the word 'utilitarian' to describe myself, but I don't think a human life has infinite value. I want to focus welfare around the people that truly need it, and if that means a small number of people are unjustly kicked off in the process, it's not ideal, but as long as it's a few dents in a nearly perfect record of only justly kicking off people, I can deal with it.

Without a time limit, people WILL just poach off the system. I'm not one to just trust the human race as a  whole and hope for the best. Obviously include a way to appeal for an extension, but the de facto limit has to be there.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Yes, well, of course you can 'deal with it'. You are not the issue.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

'Poach off the system' - it's food Wolfy. These people aren't parading like royalty, they're merely surviving. End the tyranny of big government, and enact basic income for all.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Good. People need to learn that you have to work in life, you shouldn't be able to just sit and poach off the government while telling your kids that that's the way to live. The young, disabled, and old are exempted, so don't try that argument.

Translation: When I need something it is a vital government function; when you need something, you're just looking for a free handout so you don't have to get a job.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

pro-life policies in action

[Bojack Horseman]

I've met far, far more people who work full time and still qualify for food stamps than people who just mooch. In fact, most of the moochers were cut off after the reforms of 1996 that Bill Clinton signed into law.

[SWE]

Even if people were "poaching off the system," what's wrong with that?

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Even if people were "poaching off the system," what's wrong with that?

Nothing if you like big government and are okay with our debt continuing to skyrocket.

@Wolverine: If they are working full time but still making little, that obviously meets a work requirement and I wouldn't be kicking them off. I want to see that problem resolved over time through increases to the minimum wage though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Even if people were "poaching off the system," what's wrong with that?

Nothing if you like big government and are okay with our debt continuing to skyrocket.

oh for f**k's sake

[Maxwell]

My god, insisting that SNAP benefits are the main thing that is driving the debt is absolutely ludicris.

[Indy Texas]

Even if people were "poaching off the system," what's wrong with that?

Nothing if you like big government and are okay with our debt continuing to skyrocket.

@Wolverine: If they are working full time but still making little, that obviously meets a work requirement and I wouldn't be kicking them off. I want to see that problem resolved over time through increases to the minimum wage though.

Again with the trope that "we're broke" and it's all because we give too much money to poor people and to pensions for middle-class public sector employees.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My god, insisting that SNAP benefits are the main thing that is driving the debt is absolutely ludicris.

Isn't it? The US spends billions upon billions in defense, prisons, and corporate giveaways, but God forbid even a few pennies go to the less fortunate!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's great that Wulfric's parent teaches poor kids, but I've been a poor kid; I've been on SNAP, and this type of policy and this type of rhetoric honestly, personally distress and upset me.

[Derpist]

It's absurd that people are freaking out over around 1% of SNAP recipients. Work requirements don't even require you to have a job; they just require for you to look for one. That this applies to such a small portion of people confirms that 1) 99% of SNAP reciepients are properly deserving of their benefits, which conservatives need to stop attacking and 2) liberals need to stop reflexively defending the other 1%.

Defending programs like SNAP is good and all, but at a certain point, reflexive indignant resistance to any policy change (which we saw in the 1990's) is turning our welfare state sclerotic.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's great that Wulfric's parent teaches poor kids, but I've been a poor kid; I've been on SNAP, and this type of policy and this type of rhetoric honestly, personally distress and upset me.

Teachers, despite their profession, are often some of the most misinformed people around... and it does damage to their students.  Wulfric's opinions on the issue come from the negative rantings of his "parent" here.. and they're wrong, plain and simple.  And they're hurting the students they teach.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This work requirement was one of many many right-wing things that Bill Clinton signed into law.