It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
I reckon doing 24 hours a month for about $ 200 worth of food is probably a little better than minimum wage anyway. Considering the alternative of going hungry while laying about it doesn't sound like it's too unfair.
This could go as a national trend which is a good thing.
As others have mentioned corporate welfare needs to end even more badly as the cost far outweighs any social programs.
Doesn't this just encourage that person to go out and have a kid? Not only do they then not have to work, but their SNAP allotment skyrockets.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan
The only payouts are for people who have children, and the payouts increase with the number of kids you have.
No. And yes (sort of, there are a number of considerations).
There are multiple considerations but the main philosophy of our welfare system is to care for children so that they don't grow up in severe poverty.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Cuervo
Our nation is having issues because we are moving from a manufacturing industry base to a technology and service industry base. Manufacturing will eventually be fully automated, so there really was no future in that. Smart move, but painful for us all to go through.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan
Doesn't this just encourage that person to go out and have a kid? Not only do they then not have to work, but their SNAP allotment skyrockets.
It does? Define "skyrocket."
www.fns.usda.gov...
But then, I guess if you don't feed the kid you have all that SNAP money for yourself. Right?
originally posted by: xuenchen
Maine has a 4.7% unemployment rate.
It has been dropping for a couple of years.....
Maine BLS tables
How much greater?
The economy of scale on food is much greater than that difference.
You could have fooled me. It seemed like you were saying that people have more kids just so they can get more food stamps. $150 more for food. Well worth having a child.
By skyrocket I'm not saying people who have a couple kids are living large or anything but quality of life does improve up to a point by having children.
originally posted by: TheJourney
Food for poor = corporatism
Billions for corporations = helping the middle class
originally posted by: Phage
How much greater?
You could have fooled me. It seemed like you were saying that people have more kids just so they can get more food stamps. $150 more for food. Well worth having a child.
The numbers clearly do not add up. Instead it appears people are simply going without.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan
Doesn't this just encourage that person to go out and have a kid? Not only do they then not have to work, but their SNAP allotment skyrockets.
It does? Define "skyrocket."
www.fns.usda.gov...
But then, I guess if you don't feed the kid you have all that SNAP money for yourself. Right?
originally posted by: TheJourney
These kids are getting these moochers $5 a day for food and drink! The luxury...and they have the audacity to act like they're not bankrupting the country..