MORE WINNING: Want food stamps? Work for them.

Forum rules
Keep News and Politics about News and Politics.

Do not post full articles from other websites. Always link back to the source

Discuss things respectfully and take into account that each person has a different opinion.

Remember that this is a place for everyone to enjoy. Don’t try and run people off of the site. If you are upset with someone then utilize the foe feature.

Report when things come up.

Personal attacks are against guidelines however attacks need to be directed at a member on the forum for it to be against guidelines. Lying is not against guidelines, it’s hard for us to prove someone even did lie.

Once a topic is locked we consider the issue handled and no longer respond to new reports on the topic.
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

The changes affect able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependent children (ABAWD).
I might be missing something here.
moviestar wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:37 am they are allowed to think whatever they want but anyone who thinks making children go hungry is a win is objectively a piece of shit 🙃
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:58 pm
Lemons wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:38 pm

I'll tell you why I think this. First, a Trump poster labeled this "more winning" which is a phrase Trump's base use when they think Trump has accomplished something positive. There are already work requirements on food stamps along with many other requirements and exceptions to those requirements. This is a big show for the Trump campaign. Every move Trump makes it to ensure votes for him, not ensure what's best for the country. And I very much doubt that this will save as money as they claim it will. And note who thinks this is just so great - Trump's base.

Like you said, if children end up going hungry or even adults in a bad situation go hungry, there is no "winning".
Are they not allowed to believe that a move he and his administration is a winning move even if you or others aren't inclined to believe it is? To not have them slapped with the "ignorant" label simply because they happen to believe in and agree with him? Is it OK for them to view (and they do) those like yourself who are so opposed to so much if not everything that Trump does...as ignorant?

There are plenty of moves that the Democrat congressional lawmakers have been making that many Democrat votes feel are "winning" moves. Yet many others, including Republicans, happen to not agree.

I don't agree with quite a few aspects of these new cuts and requirements to food stamps. I think it's painted with VERY broad, almost biased strokes, and doesn't depict a reality that so many in this country are facing.

But Trump is going to do whatever he can to keep his base and just like other politicians before him, Republican or Democrat. That's how they keep their voters...playing to their base.

We've now become a country divided in many ways and one of the biggest ways we are is their side vs our side. I suppose that's how it goes but in the past few years, it just seems to have gotten worse and no, I don't blame Trump at all for that.

We voters, no matter which direction we vote, are responsible for much of what goes on in this country.
moviestar
Duchess
Duchess
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:20 pm

Unread post

Maybe read the thread of responses i was commenting on.
BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:05 am
The changes affect able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependent children (ABAWD).
I might be missing something here.
moviestar wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:37 am they are allowed to think whatever they want but anyone who thinks making children go hungry is a win is objectively a piece of shit 🙃
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:58 pm

Are they not allowed to believe that a move he and his administration is a winning move even if you or others aren't inclined to believe it is? To not have them slapped with the "ignorant" label simply because they happen to believe in and agree with him? Is it OK for them to view (and they do) those like yourself who are so opposed to so much if not everything that Trump does...as ignorant?

There are plenty of moves that the Democrat congressional lawmakers have been making that many Democrat votes feel are "winning" moves. Yet many others, including Republicans, happen to not agree.

I don't agree with quite a few aspects of these new cuts and requirements to food stamps. I think it's painted with VERY broad, almost biased strokes, and doesn't depict a reality that so many in this country are facing.

But Trump is going to do whatever he can to keep his base and just like other politicians before him, Republican or Democrat. That's how they keep their voters...playing to their base.

We've now become a country divided in many ways and one of the biggest ways we are is their side vs our side. I suppose that's how it goes but in the past few years, it just seems to have gotten worse and no, I don't blame Trump at all for that.

We voters, no matter which direction we vote, are responsible for much of what goes on in this country.
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

I did and you’re right, I’m asking the wrong person, apparently.
moviestar wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:16 am Maybe read the thread of responses i was commenting on.
BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:05 am
The changes affect able-bodied adults between the ages of 18 and 49 without dependent children (ABAWD).
I might be missing something here.
moviestar wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 9:37 am they are allowed to think whatever they want but anyone who thinks making children go hungry is a win is objectively a piece of shit 🙃
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

Maybe you can shed some light on my confusion, AZ. I’m a little confused with conflicting information. I read your link and I’m wondering what was proposed to make changes in homes with children. The other links says the changes are for able bodied adults without dependent children.
Edit: I notice your article mentions public pushback and it reopened the comment period for the proposed rule to November 1st. Then they will review before making a final decision.
The other article is from Dec. Is it possible my confusion and the conflicting information is due to a final decision that didn’t include rules that would affect school Lunches or households with dependent children, as the other article says able bodied adults without dependent children.
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:05 pm
Just-mom wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:49 pm
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:21 pm There is already so much stereotyping here in society to begin with and after reading page 1 of this thread, I see where it continues.

I can get behind the work requirements and honestly, others are right in that many of those who are currently on food stamps actually already DO work to begin with.

However, these changes could potentially cut into the ability of many children who have been receiving reduced or free lunches at schools to no longer have that ability and THAT is where I have an honest problem.
How would this affect free/ reduced lunch. The application asks if you get food stamps/Medicaid. If the answer is yes you automatically qualify. Now because it is a separate program, you can still qualify if you don't get food stamps you just have to fill out the financial information, there is NOT a work requirement so how would this affect the kids?
There are many "working poor" who actually make MORE than the income limits for food stamps or other entitlement programs, and this can include the reduced/free lunch program offered at public schools.

These same folks often make too much money (again) to qualify for low-income programs yet don't have enough money to afford health care, medication, a car, and so on.

Here's some information from a website I personally trust:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how ... ds-in-need

And from the above story on that same website:
"If the proposed rule goes into effect, USDA analysis says 982,000 school children could see disruption in their access to free-or-reduced school meals. When it revised its proposal due to pushback, the federal government pointed out that most children would still have access to free-or-reduced school breakfast and lunch under the change. However, the government said an estimated 40,000 children — roughly the size of all public school children enrolled in Lincoln, Nebraska, would lose those meals because they lived in homes that reported too much in income and assets."

An estimated 40,000 children is still too many children, in my book, who could very easily be affected by this.
Deleted User 203

Unread post

According to the article that I've posted, an estimated 40,000 children will lose the reduced or free lunch program due to the income in the home becoming too much for the parent's (legal guardian, too) to qualify.

This income can include assets...and things that are accessible for potential income to come into the home.

IOW, if their parent's and I assume this could be (for example) a single parent working two minimum wage or barely above minimum wage jobs could find themselves removed from the program for earning too much income into the home.

So while yes, those with dependents in the home--children--may not see any change, others can due to the income of the able-bodied adult family members.

And they count all sources of income, too.


BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:33 am Maybe you can shed some light on my confusion, AZ. I’m a little confused with conflicting information. I read your link and I’m wondering what was proposed to make changes in homes with children. The other links says the changes are for able bodied adults without dependent children.
Edit: I notice your article mentions public pushback and it reopened the comment period for the proposed rule to November 1st. Then they will review before making a final decision.
The other article is from Dec. Is it possible my confusion and the conflicting information is due to a final decision that didn’t include rules that would affect school Lunches or households with dependent children, as the other article says able bodied adults without dependent children.
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:05 pm
Just-mom wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:49 pm

How would this affect free/ reduced lunch. The application asks if you get food stamps/Medicaid. If the answer is yes you automatically qualify. Now because it is a separate program, you can still qualify if you don't get food stamps you just have to fill out the financial information, there is NOT a work requirement so how would this affect the kids?
There are many "working poor" who actually make MORE than the income limits for food stamps or other entitlement programs, and this can include the reduced/free lunch program offered at public schools.

These same folks often make too much money (again) to qualify for low-income programs yet don't have enough money to afford health care, medication, a car, and so on.

Here's some information from a website I personally trust:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how ... ds-in-need

And from the above story on that same website:
"If the proposed rule goes into effect, USDA analysis says 982,000 school children could see disruption in their access to free-or-reduced school meals. When it revised its proposal due to pushback, the federal government pointed out that most children would still have access to free-or-reduced school breakfast and lunch under the change. However, the government said an estimated 40,000 children — roughly the size of all public school children enrolled in Lincoln, Nebraska, would lose those meals because they lived in homes that reported too much in income and assets."

An estimated 40,000 children is still too many children, in my book, who could very easily be affected by this.
Deleted User 276

Unread post

https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2019/1 ... K4-MhbN4rk

"In Massachusetts 35,000 adults stand to lose SNAP benefits. They are veterans, people who are homeless, recent high school graduates, former foster care youth, individuals with undiagnosed mental illness, individuals re-entering the workforce after incarceration and, indeed, any unmarried and able-bodied adult who wants nothing more than to work, but cannot.

Think of the worker in Nantucket without viable job opportunities in the off-season. Those in rural areas, like Orange, who have to travel to work in nearby cities like Springfield, but end up with a car problem they can’t afford to fix and no public transportation to get them to work. There are those who must care for a sick or elderly family member, and any other number of reasons that make finding and sustaining a job difficult."
BionicBunny
Princess Royal
Princess Royal
Posts: 8793
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 5:20 pm

Unread post

Oh ok. So you’re saying in the cases where there is an able bodied adult living in the home of someone who has children as their dependents. Like if one parent claims the kids on taxes and the other parent doesn’t. TY for explaining.
AZLizardLady wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:59 pm According to the article that I've posted, an estimated 40,000 children will lose the reduced or free lunch program due to the income in the home becoming too much for the parent's (legal guardian, too) to qualify.

This income can include assets...and things that are accessible for potential income to come into the home.

IOW, if their parent's and I assume this could be (for example) a single parent working two minimum wage or barely above minimum wage jobs could find themselves removed from the program for earning too much income into the home.

So while yes, those with dependents in the home--children--may not see any change, others can due to the income of the able-bodied adult family members.

And they count all sources of income, too.


BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:33 am Maybe you can shed some light on my confusion, AZ. I’m a little confused with conflicting information. I read your link and I’m wondering what was proposed to make changes in homes with children. The other links says the changes are for able bodied adults without dependent children.
Edit: I notice your article mentions public pushback and it reopened the comment period for the proposed rule to November 1st. Then they will review before making a final decision.
The other article is from Dec. Is it possible my confusion and the conflicting information is due to a final decision that didn’t include rules that would affect school Lunches or households with dependent children, as the other article says able bodied adults without dependent children.
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 10:05 pm

There are many "working poor" who actually make MORE than the income limits for food stamps or other entitlement programs, and this can include the reduced/free lunch program offered at public schools.

These same folks often make too much money (again) to qualify for low-income programs yet don't have enough money to afford health care, medication, a car, and so on.

Here's some information from a website I personally trust:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/how ... ds-in-need

And from the above story on that same website:
"If the proposed rule goes into effect, USDA analysis says 982,000 school children could see disruption in their access to free-or-reduced school meals. When it revised its proposal due to pushback, the federal government pointed out that most children would still have access to free-or-reduced school breakfast and lunch under the change. However, the government said an estimated 40,000 children — roughly the size of all public school children enrolled in Lincoln, Nebraska, would lose those meals because they lived in homes that reported too much in income and assets."

An estimated 40,000 children is still too many children, in my book, who could very easily be affected by this.
Deleted User 203

Unread post

If the able-bodied parent or legal guardian IS working (and many of THEM do still qualify for food stamps or have been able to despite holding down a job) but it's determined that they make too much income and over the maximum income mandate that can be earned for their family size, they will lose benefits.

And in turns, their children could see the loss of reduced/free lunches as often these programs are based on whether or not the family is receiving food stamps.

There are still schools that offer a breakfast and a lunch regardless of income I believe, however, but it just depends on the school/district/state.


BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:19 pm Oh ok. So you’re saying in the cases where there is an able bodied adult living in the home of someone who has children as their dependents. Like if one parent claims the kids on taxes and the other parent doesn’t. TY for explaining.
AZLizardLady wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:59 pm According to the article that I've posted, an estimated 40,000 children will lose the reduced or free lunch program due to the income in the home becoming too much for the parent's (legal guardian, too) to qualify.

This income can include assets...and things that are accessible for potential income to come into the home.

IOW, if their parent's and I assume this could be (for example) a single parent working two minimum wage or barely above minimum wage jobs could find themselves removed from the program for earning too much income into the home.

So while yes, those with dependents in the home--children--may not see any change, others can due to the income of the able-bodied adult family members.

And they count all sources of income, too.


BionicBunny wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:33 am Maybe you can shed some light on my confusion, AZ. I’m a little confused with conflicting information. I read your link and I’m wondering what was proposed to make changes in homes with children. The other links says the changes are for able bodied adults without dependent children.
Edit: I notice your article mentions public pushback and it reopened the comment period for the proposed rule to November 1st. Then they will review before making a final decision.
The other article is from Dec. Is it possible my confusion and the conflicting information is due to a final decision that didn’t include rules that would affect school Lunches or households with dependent children, as the other article says able bodied adults without dependent children.

29again
Regent
Regent
Posts: 4288
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:56 pm

Unread post

AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:21 pm There is already so much stereotyping here in society to begin with and after reading page 1 of this thread, I see where it continues.

I can get behind the work requirements and honestly, others are right in that many of those who are currently on food stamps actually already DO work to begin with.

However, these changes could potentially cut into the ability of many children who have been receiving reduced or free lunches at schools to no longer have that ability and THAT is where I have an honest problem.
It's been a while since I had to deal with school lunches, but I'm pretty sure that low-income families qualify for reduced or free lunches. The schools are fairly lenient with the qualifications. At least, in my area they are.
Expand your thinking


It’s possible to disagree with an article and not respond with a personal attack you know.
Try it.
Deleted User 203

Unread post

29again wrote: Sat Dec 07, 2019 12:20 am
AZLizardLady wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 8:21 pm There is already so much stereotyping here in society to begin with and after reading page 1 of this thread, I see where it continues.

I can get behind the work requirements and honestly, others are right in that many of those who are currently on food stamps actually already DO work to begin with.

However, these changes could potentially cut into the ability of many children who have been receiving reduced or free lunches at schools to no longer have that ability and THAT is where I have an honest problem.
It's been a while since I had to deal with school lunches, but I'm pretty sure that low-income families qualify for reduced or free lunches. The schools are fairly lenient with the qualifications. At least, in my area they are.
I hope it stays that way regardless of these SNAP changes.

According to the article I linked in my original reply, there's an estimated 40,000 children that will be cut-off from that lunch program as far as reduced/free, however.

I sincerely hope this has been an overreach on the part of the article writer.
Locked Previous topicNext topic