700,000 people could lose food stamps under Trump administration's new SNAP rules

dqhall said:

Taxing people to maintain a large army and build nuclear weapons is not charitable. No government has no taxes. You use the money they print or electronically credit and pay taxes if required, or risk Federal prison. It costs over $34,000 a year to keep a person in Federal prison. There they require more than a small amount of food assistance.

Click to expand...

Are you coming at this from a Christian standpoint? Or just a personal one?

If personal, I'd far rather see our taxes go to helping those in our own country, to rebuilding our aging infrastructure, to providing assistance to the needy than I would to endless middle eastern wars we don't belong in and have no place in, to aid to countries that spit on us the moment we hand over our hard earned money .

FAR rather see us be doing for Americans if we are going to be doing..

It's just got nothing to do with the Bible, and everything to do with our own vision for where we would like to see our taxes going if it's got to be going somewhere.

I find using the Bible to back yourself up as if the Bible has to do with Caesar a blatant falsehood, and usually used only when it convenient by those who later turn around and spit on it when it comes to saying human life has worth and the most innocent among us (our unborn) should be protected because they too, have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

I just don't use the Bible to prop up my political positions, as I don't think one has anything to do with the other other than perhaps my faith in God makes me respect certain positions over others. ..

The United States simply isn't God's Kingdom come down to earth for which biblical laws for ancient Israel would apply...Jesus's Kingdom is not of this world.

We live in this world, while not being of this world.

Hazelelponi said:

Are you coming at this from a Christian standpoint? Or just a personal one?

If personal, I'd far rather see our taxes go to helping those in our own country, to rebuilding our aging infrastructure, to providing assistance to the needy than I would to endless middle eastern wars we don't belong in and have no place in, to aid to countries that spit on us the moment we hand over our hard earned money .

FAR rather see us be doing for Americans if we are going to be doing..

It's just got nothing to do with the Bible, and everything to do with our own vision for where we would like to see our taxes going if it's got to be going somewhere.

I find using the Bible to back yourself up as if the Bible has to do with Caesar a blatant falsehood, and usually used only when it convenient by those who later turn around and spit on it when it comes to saying human life has worth and the most innocent among us (our unborn) should be protected because they too, have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..

I just don't use the Bible to prop up my political positions, as I don't think one has anything to do with the other other than perhaps my faith in God makes me respect certain positions over others. ..

The United States simply isn't God's Kingdom come down to earth for which biblical laws for ancient Israel would apply...Jesus's Kingdom is not of this world.

We live in this world, while not being of this world.

Click to expand...

Jesus was asked if they (Jews) should pay Roman taxes or not. He took out a coin and asked whose portrait was on the coin. They answered that it was Caesar's. He told them to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Mark 12:17

I agree with help America first, yet I see US troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to help stand with them against Iran. I saw a Saudi Arabian being trained on a US military base opened fire on US military personel killing three. Troops were taken out of Syria and troops were added to Saudi Arabia. Taking sides in Muslim conflicts in order to sell weapons has caused grief.

Here is some Biblical support for extending help to the poor:

James 2:14 (WEB) 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? 15 And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you tells them, “Go in peace. Be warmed and filled;” yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

dqhall said:

Jesus was asked if they (Jews) should pay Roman taxes or not. He took out a coin and asked whose portrait was on the coin. They answered that it was Caesar's. He told them to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Mark 12:17

I agree with help America first, yet I see US troops were sent to Saudi Arabia to help stand with them against Iran. I saw a Saudi Arabian being trained on a US military base opened fire on US military personel killing three. Troops were taken out of Syria and troops were added to Saudi Arabia. Taking sides in Muslim conflicts in order to sell weapons has caused grief.

Here is some Biblical support for extending help to the poor:

James 2:14 (WEB) 14 What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can faith save him? 15 And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you tells them, “Go in peace. Be warmed and filled;” yet you didn’t give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 18 Yes, a man will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Click to expand...

I agree, with your choice of scripture wholeheartedly. What some do not realize is we run into danger when our hearts get hardened. It is plainly stated in scripture how "the love of most will grow cold." There is no defense in denying food to the poor. Over and over we are told that our actions towards those who are disenfranchised come to light when we stand before our Lord on the day of judgment. We can not assume that close to a million people do not deserve to eat. That is just not right.
Be blessed and continue to support those in need!

parousia70 said:

The atmospheric amounts of Money we eagerly spend like drunken sailors on the war machine renders your "we need to cut lazy people off food stamps or else we'll we run out of money" laughable.

Click to expand...

This is right on apart from being completely false.. While it is not legal for us to have a standing army except in times of war, the duty of defense is specifically enumerated by the Constitution.

While Congress may be raping the taxpayers via an enumerated power it does not justify raping the taxpayers via a power they do not have.

Hazelelponi said:

isn't that a u_n_i_q_u_e take on government - they aren't here to govern, they are just here to facilitate..

too funny.

It's a government for the people, by the people (meaning we pick our government representatives), of the people (meaning from the citizenry)

but key word there is government -it's still there to govern, not to facilitate... we facilitate our own lives, ourselves - from what bounty God gave to us individually - and God does not give equally to all man.

To one He gives one thing to another something else, etc. In this way, we have the ability to help one another..

but government governs... its not there to be anyone's free meal ticket. Your taxes are paid for the efficient running of the government...

Your desire to give in charity, if your doing it as a Christian and not playing Robin Hood, is to be done from your own pocket, your own table, your own bounty..

God doesn't say anywhere in the Bible to give to Ceasar what is Gods. Your Christian duty is on your shoulders, it's not a pass the buck type situation..

Click to expand...

The efficient running of the government assumes an able-bodied and healthy citizenry, which becomes more and more difficult without health care for its citizens, a failing infrastructure, and a middle class that is becoming more and more extinct by the day as the wealthiest 1% and big money corporations (who pay no taxes) continue to leech all the wealth from the rest of the country.

Phoebe Ann said:

There are people such as these:

"The change, which takes effect on April 1, 2020, does not apply to children and their parents, those over 50 (including the elderly), those with a disability or pregnant women."

I hope clinical depression and other medical problems are considered disabilities.

Click to expand...

Much of clinical depression goes undiagnosed. In fact, many people who are clinically depressed are accused of being "lazy" to the point where they end up believing it themselves and continue right down that dark spiral of depression.

Maria Billingsley said:

I agree, with your choice of scripture wholeheartedly. What some do not realize is we run into danger when our hearts get hardened. It is plainly stated in scripture how "the love of most will grow cold." There is no defense in denying food to the poor. Over and over we are told that our actions towards those who are disenfranchised come to light when we stand before our Lord on the day of judgment. We can not assume that close to a million people do not deserve to eat. That is just not right.
Be blessed and continue to support those in need!

Click to expand...

At the very least, Christians should not be OPPOSED to using whatever tools we have available, including our system of government, to helping the poor. If we personally don't want to help people and keep everything we think we earned or own to ourselves, we should at least get out of the way of the people who do want to contribute to society by helping the poor and disadvantaged.

Yeah.. seems USA TODAY left out NOT TRUMPS words but.. gee who said
"
WASHINGTON — At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced a final rule to move more able-bodied recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) towards self-sufficiency and into employment. The rule restores the system to what Congress intended: assistance through difficult times, not a way of life.

“Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch. Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” said Secretary Perdue. “Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work. This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.”

We need to encourage.. on and on. NO ONE is getting kick off and given bad news around Christmas. That was not fair at all... I do take offence to that.

Blade said:

Yeah.. seems USA TODAY left out NOT TRUMPS words but.. gee who said
"
WASHINGTON — At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced a final rule to move more able-bodied recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) towards self-sufficiency and into employment. The rule restores the system to what Congress intended: assistance through difficult times, not a way of life.

“Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch. Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” said Secretary Perdue. “Now, in the midst of the strongest economy in a generation, we need everyone who can work, to work. This rule lays the groundwork for the expectation that able-bodied Americans re-enter the workforce where there are currently more job openings than people to fill them.”

We need to encourage.. on and on. NO ONE is getting kick off and given bad news around Christmas. That was not fair at all... I do take offence to that.

Click to expand...

So how are they actually helping these people move into self-sufficiency and employment? What sort of training and counseling are they offering? Are they assisting them with finding homes, advising on how to find jobs with a felony conviction, or help with serious drug addictions? Are they ensuring that each one has sufficient paid employment before taking their access to food away?

Or are they basically just kicking them all back into the streets and maybe (if they're feeling nice that day) hand them a boostrap on the way out?

bekkilyn said:

Much of clinical depression goes undiagnosed. In fact, many people who are clinically depressed are accused of being "lazy" to the point where they end up believing it themselves and continue right down that dark spiral of depression.

Click to expand...

i agree with you. There are some people who have mental issues who will not get disabillity (which would make them eligible for SNAP) but are not really employable. Those are the ones who will possibly fall through the cracks of the social safety net.

Here we are spending all this time debating whether poor people should receive food assistance. But where's the controversy over all the handouts to billionaires? I'm a lot more concerned about our governments throwing money at billionaires at taxpayers expenses. I'm a lot more concerned about Atlanta promising Amazon a lounge at the airport with free parking for their executives as a way to lure them to the city. I'm more concerned about handouts to corporations where the CEO can afford to build a mansion with a private movie theatre, all while still deciding that healthcare benefits to part time workers is too much.

Yeah, it's better you save your anger for the handouts given to billionaires than for people who happen to abuse the food stamps system--whom people love to highlight while ignoring all the people who'd be in trouble without that in place.

KeeperOfMemories said:

Here we are spending all this time debating whether poor people should receive food assistance. But where's the controversy over all the handouts to billionaires? I'm a lot more concerned about our governments throwing money at billionaires at taxpayers expenses. I'm a lot more concerned about Atlanta promising Amazon a lounge at the airport with free parking for their executives as a way to lure them to the city. I'm more concerned about handouts to corporations where the CEO can afford to build a mansion with a private movie theatre, all while still deciding that healthcare benefits to part time workers is too much.

Yeah, it's better you save your anger for the handouts given to billionaires than for people who happen to abuse the food stamps system--whom people love to highlight while ignoring all the people who'd be in trouble without that in place.

Click to expand...

Cutting deals with business owners to attracted business isn't a bad thing. Amazon's HQ2 is a perfect example of this. The government would have cut a deal with Amazon, who in turn would have brought 25,000 jobs to that area in NY. That's 25,000 people living in poverty who now have well paying jobs with health benefits. Apparently AOC's hatred of the wealthy is so great that she'd rather see her district living on the streets and collecting welfare than for Amazon to get a tax break.

bekkilyn said:

So how are they actually helping these people move into self-sufficiency and employment? What sort of training and counseling are they offering? Are they assisting them with finding homes, advising on how to find jobs with a felony conviction, or help with serious drug addictions? Are they ensuring that each one has sufficient paid employment before taking their access to food away?

Or are they basically just kicking them all back into the streets and maybe (if they're feeling nice that day) hand them a boostrap on the way out?

Click to expand...

Many people that fell on hard times do know how to move into employment, and self sufficiency. Yet, this program will help them keep their snap benefits while working at least 20 hours. If you read the program details you might actually know that. Stereotypes about them needy and not knowing how to do anything doesn't help. Why people insist on this group being stereotyped as stupid is actually very cruel. You might be surprised.

Most people want to work, but if your benefits are at risk? They tend to worry about entering the workforce, because of those benefits being taken away. Allowing benefits to gradually change as their circumstances do helps them feel safe enough to move out of dependency, and into self sufficiency. WHY people have their stereotype on how they WANT to do be dependent and not independent shows people's ignorance of human nature. SNAP is also a supplemental program - not the only way you get food program.

Government does already have job training programs, and they also help fund counseling programs in many areas. Those were available prior, and could have been taken advantage of prior to their change of rules. No one can force people to take advantage of them, but WHY people think no one does until it's time for Benefits change due to economic changes in the job market? People must really think this group are ignorant fools or something...and their not.

They fell on hard times, and people don't realize how quickly that can happen. Instead people use these stereotypes that are passed around. Sadly, the media tends to use these stereotypes to their advantage. Many articles read these changes are JUST in time for the Christmas holiday season. It takes effect in April. 4 months afterwards.

Also if they actually took the time to read the rules? They might find they aren't taking away their access to food. They said that able body adults within a certain age range - with no dependents or disabilities need to work 20 hours to RECEIVE their Snap benefits.

If it is shown that they have been looking for jobs, and could not land one...they still recieve their SNAP benefits. They have exemptions in place for those circumstances, and people want to fear monger this change instead of actually reading it.

This is a food benefit not a housing benefit they are altering. Adjusting your SNAP benefits isn't kicking anyone into the street.

bekkilyn said:

Much of clinical depression goes undiagnosed. In fact, many people who are clinically depressed are accused of being "lazy" to the point where they end up believing it themselves and continue right down that dark spiral of depression.

Click to expand...

There are programs and clinics that can help them, and hopefully this may help them reach out. Sometimes pushing people into help is what is needed.

You can't hold back an entire group of people from graduating into the workforce in time due to another smaller group not doing so due to depression. This could actually nudge them to get the help they need. Small steps can help them, and if they do reach out and get diagnosed? They can still keep their benefits.

Just keeping them where they are now isn't helping anyone - especially them.

Jermayn said:

Cutting deals with business owners to attracted business isn't a bad thing. Amazon's HQ2 is a perfect example of this. The government would have cut a deal with Amazon, who in turn would have brought 25,000 jobs to that area in NY. That's 25,000 people living in poverty who now have well paying jobs with health benefits. Apparently AOC's hatred of the wealthy is so great that she'd rather see her district living on the streets and collecting welfare than for Amazon to get a tax break.

Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Those 25,000 jobs wouldn't have gone to the people living in that area of Queens. They likely would've gone to people from outside who have the credentials and connections to get in. Those people would be making a much higher salary than the current residents, and the demand for that area would increase the rent prices. The new people would be able to afford it, but the people living there would be pushed out. Sure, restaurants would get increased business, but it may not be enough to offset the increase in rent they will be paying.

That's exactly what happened in Seattle. Amazon brought in a lot of new workers from across the country who were educated and had the skills to fill the higher paying jobs. But it didn't bring much to the people currently living there. Rent went up through the roof. I'm paying almost twice as much for the same amount of space as I did during the beginning of the decade. A lot of people couldn't afford the insane increases and became homeless. When people talk about homeless here, they think of the drug addicts in the street. But there's a huge invisible homeless population. These are people with jobs--they aren't what you think of when you think of homelessness. I've heard the story of a 52 year old nurse who became homeless when she couldn't afford her rent increase. She sleeps in her car.

The opposition to Amazon's HQ2 isn't "We hate jobs and want everyone to be poor and dependent". New York already has a ridiculously high cost of living (while also already having plenty of jobs), and the people barely making it by there know that HQ2 will be straw that breaks the camel's back and force them to either move or become homeless.

KeeperOfMemories said:

Here we are spending all this time debating whether poor people should receive food assistance. But where's the controversy over all the handouts to billionaires? I'm a lot more concerned about our governments throwing money at billionaires at taxpayers expenses. I'm a lot more concerned about Atlanta promising Amazon a lounge at the airport with free parking for their executives as a way to lure them to the city. I'm more concerned about handouts to corporations where the CEO can afford to build a mansion with a private movie theatre, all while still deciding that healthcare benefits to part time workers is too much.

Yeah, it's better you save your anger for the handouts given to billionaires than for people who happen to abuse the food stamps system--whom people love to highlight while ignoring all the people who'd be in trouble without that in place.

Click to expand...

Apparently, it's perfectly okay if the billionaires and big money corporations continue to leech every last bit of wealth from the rest of the country, but no one better give that poor family down the street a refrigerator or that would be "socialism".

Before cutting food stamps for the poor or those who have fallen on hard times... I believe we should cut corporate welfare. Think about it. We have subsidies, tax breaks, and tax havens for these corporations... and they are recording record profits! And corporate welfare costs over twice what social welfare costs us. And... on top of all this these massive industries don't pay any taxes back into the very society that helped them become multi-billion dollar organizations.

They say we can't afford to provide food stamps for the poor. I say... we can't afford to subsidies the rich. It's not the poor fleecing the American people. It's the rich.

Until they cut corporate welfare... this is simply an unprincipled and immoral attack on the poor.

Aquila0121 said:

Before cutting food stamps for the poor or those who have fallen on hard times... I believe we should cut corporate welfare. Think about it. We have subsidies, tax breaks, and tax havens for these corporations... and they are recording record profits! And corporate welfare costs over twice what social welfare costs us. And... on top of all this these massive industries don't pay any taxes back into the very society that helped them become multi-billion dollar organizations.

They say we can't afford to provide food stamps for the poor. I say... we can't afford to subsidies the rich. It's not the poor fleecing the American people. It's the rich.

Until they cut corporate welfare... this is simply an unprincipled and immoral attack on the poor.

Click to expand...

We could kill to birds with one stone and do both, if only we had the integrity and courage to acknowledge that the Constitution does not enumerate the power of this type of expropriation to the Federal government, and they have illegally and un-Constitutionally excercised authority they do not have.

These kinds of things fall within the rights of the state governments, and are rightly and most effectively handled at that level -- closer to the people.

They say we don't have enough money to provide food stamps for the poor. They say we don't have enough money to improve public schools and universities. They say we don't have enough money to provide universal health insurance. They say we don't have enough money to update our outdated civil infrastructure. They say we don't have enough money to provide free tuition to public universities. They say we don't have enough money for Medicare. They say we don't have enough money for Social Security.

But you'll note something.

They always have enough money to allow corporations to pay NOTHING in taxes. They also have enough money to give these corporations billions and billions and billions in subsidies. They always have money for a new bomber. They always have enough money for trillion dollar wars.

Makes you wonder... what or who are we actually defending???

Aquila0121 said:

They always have enough money to allow corporations to pay NOTHING in taxes. They also have enough money to give these corporations billions and billions and billions in subsidies. They always have money for a new bomber. They always have enough money for trillion dollar wars.

Makes you wonder... what or who are we actually defending???

Click to expand...

You know, if we repealed the amendment giving the federal government federal income tax it would likely solve a lot of this. The corruption you speak of comes from DC having too much power.

If citizens like you and I took the Constitution seriously it would also solve a lot of those problems. For example, it's illegal for us to have a standing army except in times of warfare, and Congress has not declared a war since WW2.

Also, it's illegal to have all these expropriation programs. The Constitution does not enumerate the power.

If we started taking the Constitution seriously it would address a lot of the grievances you list