Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, December 04, 2019

The Department of Agriculture gave its final approval to the first of three rules that are ultimately expected to cut 3 million from the food stamp roles.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Someone has to pay for the tax cuts for billionaires.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-04 11:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Someone has to pay for the tax cuts for billionaires.

#1 | Posted by Nixon at 2019

In this case American farmers. Donald Trump hates farmers. Hates them. I hope they're not too stupid to notice how hated they are.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 11:51 AM | Reply

""Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream," Sonny Perdue,"

Said the man who has been collecting a check from the government since 1991 including $278,000 in USDA subsidies.

#3 | Posted by Nixon at 2019-12-04 11:53 AM | Reply

#1 | POSTED BY NIXON

Yeah because the US government runs such a tight ship....

#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-04 12:00 PM | Reply


#4 | Posted by AndreaMackris

Donald Trump just killed another market for American farmers.

You need to own that, because your cult leader won't.

#5 | Posted by Zed at 2019-12-04 12:34 PM | Reply

#5 It's called short term pain for long term gain.

#6 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-04 03:48 PM | Reply

"It's called short term pain for long term gain."

Nonsense. It's called borrowing an additional $2.3 Trillion that you and your family will be expected to pay back.

You realize you and every other income tax payer in your family borrowed $11K per person, right? A married couple with two kids borrowed $44,000 for the "tax cut", all for about $3/week for a W-2 worker who makes $50K.

It's a short term gain, 82% for the world's wealthiest 1%, for long-term pain, inflicted on YOU.

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-04 03:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

As long as Betsy DeVos can afford her 12th yacht, who cares about the poor and hungry.

#8 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-12-04 03:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

3million.....

Now hundreds of thousands...

Let me know when thousands are affected.

#9 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-04 04:07 PM | Reply

#9 you won't care no matter what the number you sociopathic jackass.

#10 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-04 07:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Advertisement

Advertisement

This is a short read justifying the changes being made:

Our food-stamp program has some bizarre loopholes in it, and the Trump administration is trying to close them. A new rule finalized today attacks one in particular.

In theory, the program has a strict time limit for "ABAWDs," or able-bodied adults without dependents: If they don't meet their work requirement or receive a case-by-case exemption from their state, they may receive food stamps for at most three months in any 36-month period. But in practice, the executive branch has broad discretion to waive the limit for large geographic areas with weak labor markets " and previous administrations used that discretion promiscuously. As of 2017, about a third of the U.S. population lived in waived areas.

Under the old rule, any place with an unemployment rate one-fifth above the national average was eligible for a waiver. (Places could " and still can " also establish eligibility by having an absolute rate over 10 percent.) This meant that when unemployment was low throughout the country, areas with good labor markets could still receive waivers, simply because unemployment wasn't quite as low there as it was elsewhere.

The old rule also allowed states to effectively gerrymander their waiver requests, combining high- and low-unemployment counties to maximize the number of people exempted. All told, states such as Illinois and California were able to obtain waivers for all but a few of their counties.

In short, the system was unfair and arbitrary, imposing time limits on some recipients but not others based on where they happened to live, failing to target the waivers toward truly needy areas, and allowing states to abuse the rules to draw in more federally funded benefits.


www.nationalreview.com

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-04 07:55 PM | Reply

"... press states to carry out work requirements for able-bodied adults without children that governors have routinely been allowed to waive, especially for areas in economic distress."

This is just part of the Republican cycle; cause areas of economic distress by redistricting and shortchanging mostly minority neighborhoods economically.... then go back and penalize individuals living there because they are living in an economically distressed area.

Mattress et al, approves.

#12 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-04 09:04 PM | Reply

Didn't Bill Clinton kick more people off assistance than this?

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2019-12-04 09:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Free work boots available - www.charitableunion.org

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2019-12-04 10:48 PM | Reply

Oh no! Those poor able bodied people with no dependents won't be able to suckle from the teet of the government?! What a terrible shame!

THIS is the kind of thing I love Trump for. Close these -------- loopholes. Stop giving money to lazy good for nothings who refuse to move to where there are jobs. It's not like they're supporting kids. It's not like they're handicapped. These are just lazy ----- that are abusing the safety net and think the government owes them a living. Nah, brah - you were born in an area where maybe there's not a lot of jobs. You have no attachments, and you can walk. So walk your ass to where the jobs are!

#15 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 01:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#13 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Yeah but Trump!

#16 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-12-05 02:04 AM | Reply

"Didn't Bill Clinton kick more people off assistance than this?"

Didn't Bill Clinton #MAGA?

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 02:16 AM | Reply

"The Trump administration, brushing aside tens of thousands of protest letters, gave final approval on Wednesday to a rule that will remove nearly 700,000 people from the federal food-stamp program by strictly enforcing federal work requirements."

So we are upset that the government will be enforcing the laws that currently stand on the law books?

Don't you find this a strange protest?

#18 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 02:25 AM | Reply

Let's say the government started strictly enforcing jaywalking.

I would find that strange, and the protest sensible.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 02:29 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-05 02:29 AM | FLAG:

Hopefully you would seek to have the laws UPDATED - you know, make congress and senate do their job.

It seems the work requirements are vaguely protested with the real issue being the timing (but when will we ever agree the timing is right?).

Enforce the law or scrap the law - in so far as human government goes.

#20 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 02:40 AM | Reply

"Hopefully you would seek to have the laws UPDATED - you know, make congress and senate do their job"

You're making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Simply not enforcing each and every law hyper-aggressively is "good enough" for a free society.

The police certainly could do a lot more to combat jaywalking, and littering, and many other things.
That doesn't mean they ought to.

So it is with food stamps.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 03:44 AM | Reply

#21 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2019-12-05 03:44 AM | FLAG:

Sorry, there does need to be a means test for a program like that. There are expectations and requirements. It is a short term program to assist. It is never meant to be permanent.

Some laws, if enforce, will take care of many other issues. The problem is, everyone complains when they are enforced on them.

Enforcement staves off systemic abuse and reliance. It also prevents a continuation of a problem to a point where it is unavailable and unpreventable.

#22 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 03:53 AM | Reply

the best way to cut back on food stamps is to force companies to pay living wage so the government is not subsidizing Businesses by giving their employees food stamps because they are paying too little for them to live on.

#23 | Posted by THomewood at 2019-12-05 05:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

puddle of sick
#11 | POSTED BY JEFFJ AT 2019-12-04 07:55 PM

Meaning, they are re-enforcing strict limits on large geographic areas with weak labor markets to what end? Somehow shame people into employment? If the market is weak, the positions available reflect that. Larger density means more workforce than positions. The enslavement isn't about work, but worklessness leading to inevitable homelessness and debt. We are witnessing the decimation of 3 million more people. Holy days demark our sacred trust and binding.. apparently nothing to anyone in particular. This nation least of all. Travesty upon heapings of disgust, it's hard to communicate how slick the filth your linked spew reads. My workplace is on the county edge, many of us live in a different county. People are not being assessed by their income but their districts'. Merry-f'd-up-Christmas, how utterly crude does this crisis need to become?! The homeless are increasing rapidly in every town, this isn't just a deficit of housing, but reliable income even in nicer neighborhoods.

If ANYTHING food stamps should be made available to all citizens.

Enforcement staves off systemic abuse and reliance. It also prevents a continuation of a problem to a point where it is unavailable and unpreventable.
#22 | POSTED BY HEURISTICGRATIS AT 2019-12-05 03:53 AM

I would imagine if there were other means of paying bills available that "systemic abuse" could be curtailed. What is the income demographic of these "abusers"? Don't they have a Walmart to apply at, or are we talking about near-destitute but not in a shelter yet? So curious why go through the trouble of "abusing" food? There must be a better reason than "because I can".

#24 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2019-12-05 05:32 AM | Reply

Somebody has to help pay for the $16 billion/yr for "wealthy gentlemen farmers."

#25 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-05 07:10 AM | Reply

I know an very poor 84 year old lady, partially paralyzed and in a wheelchair who gets $14.00/mo. Shame on these slouches. She needs to get a job. /snark

#26 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-05 07:15 AM | Reply

#26
Why are you conflating able-bodied with non-able-bodied? Like, what's that getting you?

#27 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 07:48 AM | Reply

MEROVIGAN

I get nothing. The lady I'm talking about a lady who was unfortunate enough to lose her husband in a car crash that killed her husband and paralyzed her. Stage one of the Food Stamp program recently reduced her Food Stamp allocation from $24.00/mo to $14.00/mo.

Don't talk to me about ONLY affecting able-bodied people. She was reduced because she lives in HUD building and her rent is only $30% of her income. She has a whole $220.00/mo left to pay for food, utilities and other necessities of life. Multiply that by thousands of people in the same boat.

#28 | Posted by Twinpac at 2019-12-05 08:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

A hungry man is an angry man...
--Bob Marley, "Them Belly Full (But We Hungry)

#29 | Posted by catdog at 2019-12-05 09:17 AM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Well, that's her fault for marrying a man who didn't have a fortune to leave to her.

-- The Right

#30 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-05 09:44 AM | Reply

#24 | POSTED BY REDLIGHTROBOT AT 2019-12-05 05:32 AM | FLAG:

I don't think you are understanding the principle of work requirements as part of the process of moving these people along on their journey to self sufficiency.

Will they necessarily have a job that gives theme verything they want in life (cultural extravagance)? No
Can they get a job that makes sure they cover the basics and can starts saving and working toward a better situation and better job? Yes

#31 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:52 AM | Reply

Don't talk to me about ONLY affecting able-bodied people. She was reduced because she lives in HUD building and her rent is only $30% of her income. She has a whole $220.00/mo left to pay for food, utilities and other necessities of life. Multiply that by thousands of people in the same boat.
#28 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2019-12-05 08:18 AM | FLAG:

Focus on the rule, not the exception.

Better argument strategy. Yes, there are sad stories all over the place. Help those people - You - personally - help those people.

#32 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2019-12-05 09:53 AM | Reply

Limiting the work requirement waiver to areas with over 6% unemployment seems rather arbitrary to me. If someone is unemployed and hungry, they're unemployed and hungry, no matter how well off their neighbors are doing.

In practice this is likely to result in people being forced into depressed areas if they want to keep their food stamps. But economic segregation is probably seen as a feature, not a bug, to Trumpers.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 10:14 AM | Reply

"In practice this is likely to result in people being forced into depressed areas if they want to keep their food stamps."

It will also favor red states over blue ones...just like the farm subsidies.

#34 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-05 10:16 AM | Reply

#32
Yes. Exactly. The government isn't here to handle every single outlier. It's not supposed to be the ONLY solution because it can't handle every single situation without breaking, or literally running and interfering in every person's life.

The person you're talking about is getting free money from the government AND reduced rent from the government. And you're mad because it's not enough free stuff?! Sorry for the rudeness of this but go to hell. Life's tough, bad things happen, and it's not the government's job to entirely take care of you. Twin, you're like the woman crying she has no ham while holding two loaves of bread under her arms.

If you really want the government to take full care of you, go commit a crime and get locked up. They'll totally take care of you then. Out here they only do a lot for you, not literally everything.

#35 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The government isn't here to handle every single outlier

Letting poor people eat food isn't asking the government to "handle an outlier." I'd rather err on the side of letting poor people eat, even if some lazy people get thrown into the mix.

I'm lazy. Sometimes incredibly so. But i can eat without help from others, for which i am eternally grateful. And i don't pretend everyone else has the same opportunities and luck that i've had, and i don't begrudge anyone for having the same traits i have.

#36 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 11:38 AM | Reply

#36
I understand and respect that opinion.
I would rather err on the side of the government not feeding people even if it means some deserving have to find alternatives.

I accept that some amount of the government feeding people is necessary, and I would never advocate for the practice to be completely done away with, but just as you would err to the left, I'd err to the right. I think individuals, communities and churches are far better at caring for those who cannot care for themselves than the federal, or even state, governments are. We're Americans - we'll figure it out for ourselves; that's what we do.

#37 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 11:45 AM | Reply

I would rather err on the side of the government not feeding people even if it means some deserving have to find alternatives.

That's an objectively cruel position that inflicts needless suffering on others. Congrats on being a sociopath.

#38 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 12:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#38
It's only cruel if you sincerely believe humans are inept and need a government to care for them. If you believe that, I can understand how you'd see my opinion as sociopathic.

However, I believe that your opinion objectively false to the point of nonsense - humans survived for most of our existence without a government to feed them. We don't need government to eat. Governments are not Gods. Your phrasing - "Letting poor people eat food" gives literally god-like powers to the government. How else could the government literally prevent, or not "let," people eat if it weren't God?

There is nothing wrong with some amount of suffering. To live is to suffer, to survive is to find meaning in it. Suffering is what takes that laziness you mentioned earlier, and turns it into a drive to succeed. Again, I'm not saying we should end all federal food stamp funds. I said above, I would be against that. I just err on the opposite side that you do because I believe smooth seas make bad sailors. We need to struggle; it's an important part of figuring out how to provide for ourselves.

We disagree; sorry you feel the need to call me names about it.

#39 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 02:50 PM | Reply

- I can understand how you'd see my opinion as sociopathic.

'Nuff said.

Misfortune is part of the human condition, and a conscientious society will make sure that they do what is possible to help those who suffer misfortune; most people, other than the totally self-deluded, understand that precept that, "there but for the grace of God (or fate, in you prefer) go I".

Those who don't are only fooling themselves; born on 3rd base thinking they hit a home run.

#40 | Posted by Corky at 2019-12-05 03:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Hmm...

It sounds like Trump may be pursuing a more European approach.

#41 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-05 03:40 PM | Reply

I know an very poor 84 year old lady, partially paralyzed and in a wheelchair who gets $14.00/mo. Shame on these slouches. She needs to get a job. /snark

#26 | POSTED BY TWINPAC AT 2019-12-05 07:15 AM | FLAG:

This only effects people between 18 and 49 without dependents. She is 84.

#42 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-05 03:46 PM | Reply

I would rather err on the side of the government not feeding people even if it means some deserving have to find alternatives.
That's an objectively cruel position that inflicts needless suffering on others. Congrats on being a sociopath.

#38 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2019-12-05 12:15 PM | FLAG:

Relax Joe, it's not that bad, you only need to work 20 hours a week.

#43 | Posted by fishpaw at 2019-12-05 03:49 PM | Reply

Focus on the rule, not the exception.
Better argument strategy. Yes, there are sad stories all over the place. Help those people - You - personally - help those people.

#32 | POSTED BY HEURISTICGRATIS AT 2019-12-05 09:53 AM

Agreed, Twinpac should look to maybe help pay this woman's expenses so she can stretch her 220 bucks a little further.

#44 | Posted by byrdman at 2019-12-05 04:02 PM | Reply

#40
If you're born on third base, and think you've hit a home run, then you don't understand how Baseball works.

#45 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 04:06 PM | Reply

"Sorry, there does need to be a means test for a program like that"

There already is a means test for programs like that.
You think they just give food stamps to anyone who asks for them?

You're like a walking, talking Dunning-Kruger Effect on this issue, aren't you?
Ever been on food stamps? Ever had a friend or family member on food stamps? Ever been a retailer that takes food stamps?

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 04:26 PM | Reply

It's only cruel if you sincerely believe humans are inept and need a government to care for them.

Some of them absolutely are. Your inability to comprehend such a basic fact is baffling.

humans survived for most of our existence without a government to feed them

Just because the human race still exists today doesn't mean many haven't needlessly died of starvation and other misfortunes along the way. Does this really require explanation?

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 04:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We disagree; sorry you feel the need to call me names about it.

If the shoe fits, wear it. If you don't like "sociopath," perhaps "eugenicist" is more appropriate.

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2019-12-05 04:33 PM | Reply

"humans survived for most of our existence without a government to feed them"

And without money too.
So let's see you do that, since you're so smart.
I'll hold your beer.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-05 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"humans survived for most of our existence without a government to feed them"

And for most of that existence the average life span was 35 years.

"Unhygienic living conditions and little access to effective medical care meant life expectancy was likely limited to about 35 years of age. That's life expectancy at birth, a figure dramatically influenced by infant mortality "pegged at the time as high as 30 percent."

"In a 2010 article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch describes the average life spans in ancient Greek and Roman times as short at approximately of 20 to 35 years"
www.verywellhealth.com

I guess you find that sufficient. Without things like Public Health (provided by government) we would be living (and dying) like in the dark ages.

---- Sapiens is not a solitary animal, it is social. Government is just an evolution of that characteristic.

#50 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-05 07:51 PM | Reply

More from the 'pro-life' crowd that hate anyone who had the audacity to actually be born.

#51 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-12-05 08:16 PM | Reply

More from the 'pro-life' crowd that hate anyone who had the audacity to actually be born not rich.

FTFY

#52 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2019-12-05 11:53 PM | Reply

#48
Some of them absolutely are. Your inability to comprehend such a basic fact is baffling.
I've repeatedly said that I wouldn't support the full abolishment of food stamps. Repeatedly. Said. This. But you can't hear it. You only hear "I don't entirely agree with you" and thus, to you, I'm a sociopath. It's not that it bothers me, it's just weird behavior from someone who seems to fairly empathetic. You clearly care about the people who need food stamps, why not people who disagree with you?

Oh right, we're evil, sociopaths, eugenicists (was that a Nazi reference?) etc. Beneath empathy, beneath humanity, lesser than you and justifiably so.

Aight. So ... we shouldn't be on the same team then, and I'mma vote for Trump just to make sure I'm not associated with people like you. Because what else would a reasonable person do?

#53 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 11:53 PM | Reply

#49
I'm not sure "a government to feed them" and "money" are quite equivalent. We certainly had some form of money LONG before we had social welfare. This argument works as a "zing" but it falls apart under any scrutiny.

#54 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-05 11:55 PM | Reply

#50
I'd agree that government is evolution of human characteristics and, as such, certain parts are going to be good and others evil.

The path to hell is lined in good intentions, and I'd argue that Food Stamps For All is one such good intention. A government that simply feeds its people is a government literally buying votes with food. It demeans the citizen. It stunts their their growth. It's just wrong on so many levels that it should take extreme situations (ie. physical handicap and imminent death) to justify it.

I support government interventions in extreme situations, to cover those who would truly fall through the cracks and die if such intervention were not administered. I just don't think that's nearly as many people as you do.

#55 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:00 AM | Reply

"A government that simply feeds its people is a government literally buying votes with food. "

If that's the barometer, what would you call the government charging Exxon no income taxes, and rebating them millions year after year?

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 12:02 AM | Reply

#52
No one is born rich - we become rich through the actions of others and our own actions. There are many poor adults born to millionaires, and many millionaires born to poor people.

Further - you accuse me hate but no, that's not it. I simply want people to work. I expect them to work. As hard as they can, at something that other people value. That is how we earn life.

#57 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:03 AM | Reply

"No one is born rich"

Paris "I've never had a job" Hilton on line #1 for you.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 12:06 AM | Reply

#56
We probably agree that that's not acceptable, but I don't like the shell game of "Lets talk about something else instead of agreeing or disagreeing on the topic at hand." Exxon isn't a citizen, it doesn't need caloric intake on a daily basis to continue to exist, and the government isn't about to start enforcing rules on them that will require them to work or move to where jobs are if they are able.

Again, we probably agree that Corporations aren't paying their fair share, it's just not worth going in that direction when "You're evil because you support ANY limitation on food stamps!" is still on the table.

#59 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:07 AM | Reply

"No one is born rich - we become rich through the actions of others and our own actions."

Imagine actually believing that!

You're a perfect Trumper.

#60 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 12:10 AM | Reply

#58
Yup. And certainly, if you're intellectually honest, you can admit there are some people with rich parents but who are themselves poor. No one is born rich - you become rich through the actions of others, and yourself. This idea that a person IS rich like they ARE tall, or ARE a race, as if wealth is an intrinsic and permanent quality is part of what feeds the Hate Machine that is modern politics, and I'm asking you to be a part of stopping that --------. Because if a person IS rich than they can also BE poor. It becomes deterministic when, in truth, wealth is anything but decided at birth.

#61 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:11 AM | Reply

#60
I am whatever you say I am. I sleep just fine at night. Usually on my side, with a pillow between my knees.

#62 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:12 AM | Reply

"No one is born rich"

So all throughout your life, when you heard about people born with a silver spoon in their mouth, what does that mean?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 12:18 AM | Reply

#63
It means that whomever said it wants me to be jealous of, and thus biased against, the person of whom they are speaking. They want me to believe the person does not deserve what they have. They want me to believe, as was said earlier that they were "born on third base and think they hit a triple" when, in fact, they may have been born on third base, walked back to first, and earned their way back to third again. How the hell should I know - wealth isn't a character trait, just like lack of wealth isn't a character trait.

#64 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:29 AM | Reply

"It means that whomever said it wants me to be jealous of, and thus biased against, the person of whom they are speaking."

Jealous of what?

#65 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 12:30 AM | Reply

#65
The assumed advantages they had.

#66 | Posted by Merovigan at 2019-12-06 12:33 AM | Reply

What advantages?

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 01:47 AM | Reply

Trump heard there is a French Fry shortage.

#68 | Posted by bored at 2019-12-06 02:34 AM | Reply

"I'd argue that Food Stamps For All is one such good intention."

Food Stamps For All... doesn't exist.
You're tilting at windmills.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 02:41 AM | Reply

I used to be a foodstamp caseworker. Plenty of able bodied guys in their 20s, not students,never held a job as per their statements. $194 a month SNAP for each of them. Yes, we as a society need to help the needy. But maybe, just maybe rewarding able bodied for refusing to work is not in anyone's best interest.

#70 | Posted by visiter at 2019-12-06 07:53 AM | Reply

"If that's the barometer, what would you call the government charging Exxon no income taxes, and rebating them millions year after year?"

It's not buying votes for sure...since Exxon can't vote.

#71 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 11:32 AM | Reply

Germany is very stringent within their welfare system. There are three types:

1. Arbeitslosengeld I: is a contributory benefit that is available to people who have paid National Insurance for at least 12 months in the previous two years. Unemployment Benefit amounts to 60% of the average net income of the past 12 months, or 67% if the claimant has a child. Unemployment Benefit can be received for a maximum of 12 months by people under the age of 50, and up to 24 months for people over the age of 58.

2. Arbeitslosengeld II: Also known as Hartz IV, it's a non-contributory benefit that is available to all people who are capable of working, which is means. Recipients are paid a monthly basic allowance as well as certain additional allowances. The basic allowance is supposed to cover everyday expenses, e.g. food, clothes and personal hygiene. Recipients must participate in work programs. If they are not actively working, they must actively be seeking work, as reported through the Federal Employment Agency or other authority. If a person rejects a job offer without significant reason their basic allowance is reduced by 30% for 3 months. If a second job is rejected " or any other breach of obligation occurs " within one year the basic allowance is reduced by 60%, and Unemployment Benefit II is completely withdrawn in case of a third time. For claimants under the age of 25 this escalates even faster: if they reject one job offer they lose their basic allowance completely and only receive the allowance for housing and heating, if this happens a second time they lose all benefits. For missing any appointments with the Job Center or medical appointments the basic allowance is reduced by 10%. In case the basic allowance is reduced by more than 30% and there are children living in the household, the family will receive food vouchers.

A lot of people collecting this benefit work at what are known as "1 Euro" jobs, because the government provides the bulk of the income to the recipient...the employer paying very little. Although usually more than one Euro per hour, as the term would imply.

3. Sozialgeld: is a benefit available to people that are not capable to work if they live with at least one person that is capable to work, to ensure that all benefits for that household are administered by one authority. The allowances are the same as for Unemployment Benefit II. People who are not capable to work that do not live with a person that is capable to work receive a similar benefit that is locally administered by the social welfare offices.

#72 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 11:46 AM | Reply

"Paris "I've never had a job" Hilton on line #1 for you."

Paris Hilton had a job. As the spokesperson for Burger King. Twice.

#73 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 11:48 AM | Reply

"It's not buying votes for sure...since Exxon can't vote."

You're joking, right? Exxon doesn't buy votes?!? In what bizzaro world?

OF COURSE Exxon buys votes; they do it all the time, just at the top of the scale, not the ballot-box bottom.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 01:03 PM | Reply

"Paris Hilton had a job. As the spokesperson for Burger King. Twice."

Wow.

Both shoots might've totaled one entire 8 hour work day.

You sure showed us.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 01:05 PM | Reply

"OF COURSE Exxon buys votes; they do it all the time, just at the top of the scale, not the ballot-box bottom."

OK.

So whose votes are they buying?

And for the sake of an academic argument, aren't they using their own money? That would still be preferable to me than Bernie buying votes with taxpayer dollars.

#76 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 01:45 PM | Reply

"Both shoots might've totaled one entire 8 hour work day."

If I recall, Burger King paid PH an ungodly amount of money. So...there's that.

I would have gotten all sudsy washing a car for a fraction of what they paid her.

#77 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 01:47 PM | Reply

"I would have gotten all sudsy washing a car for a fraction of what they paid her.

Hell, you probably got "sudsy" just watching.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 01:54 PM | Reply

"If I recall, Burger King paid PH an ungodly amount of money. So...there's that."

Yeah, that would make her 8 hours of work...8 whole hours of work.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 01:55 PM | Reply

"That would still be preferable to me than Bernie buying votes with taxpayer dollars." - #76 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 01:45 PM

Mitch McConnell Talks Fiscal Conservatism But Brings Home The Bacon

[snip] Between 2008 and 2010, McConnell was solely responsible for more than $289 million in earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Apparently, to some, buying votes with taxpayer dollars is okay so long as it is a Republican doing it.

#80 | Posted by Hans at 2019-12-06 01:56 PM | Reply

"Apparently, to some, buying votes with taxpayer dollars is okay so long as it is a Republican doing it."

Not really.

But let's be honest. Traditional earmarks are a pittance compared to the trillions Bernie wants to spend buying votes. I don't disagree with you, but it's like comparing someone who stole the hope diamond with someone who stole a snickers bar.

#81 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"It's not buying votes for sure...since Exxon can't vote."

Free college tuition isn't buying votes, since colleges can't vote.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 03:29 PM | Reply

"Free college tuition isn't buying votes, since colleges can't vote."

But the Future Baristas of America sure can!

#83 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 03:45 PM | Reply

The Current Oil Workers of America can vote too!

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 03:49 PM | Reply

There are millions of middle and upper class parents with high-school age, college-bound kids who would much rather spend their money on their yearly vacation and new luxury car than college tuition. Sanders and Warren wants them to go to the Bahamas on the taxpayer's dime.

#85 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-06 03:59 PM | Reply

"There are millions of middle and upper class parents with high-school age, college-bound kids who would much rather spend their money on their yearly vacation and new luxury car than college tuition."

All those cars and vacations will create oodles of jobs!

#86 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 04:01 PM | Reply

It takes roughly 2 years to be approved for disability, what exactly is a person who is disabled but waiting for approval supposed to eat for 21 months of that wait?

Until approval they are classed as able bodied.

#87 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2019-12-06 04:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort