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.

 

Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches In Their Place

page: 10
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm


That and it's illegal and immoral as well.


Ah but our beloved Nanny State can do just whatever it pleases, even break it's own rules, all in the name of the common good.




posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   

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.


You're assuming the person gets $200. If you're single the amount you get is drastically reduced. Here in Ohio if you live on $700/month, and over 75% of that is going to rent/utilities, and you're single you only get about $50/month. Would 24 hours/month for $50 in assistance still be fair?

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.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   
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?

edit on 7/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   

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. This results in one of the major factors in determining how much if anything a person gets being the number of children they're supporting.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That may work,a functional government is necessary to a point,we are just way past that point...



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




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.

No. Welfare cannot do anything about severe poverty.
It's intention is to see that people who are unable to support themselves and/or family do not starve.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

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.


Which countries do you think will have the maintaining the 'Fully Automated' systems? Would it not be the one's who either make the robots or actually will be upgrading their manufacturing plants to robots?



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

If trapping people is the point, blame the voter, not the thugs who do their job. People should leave that state and just leave the part time welfare workers there.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:19 AM
link   

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?


Funny, I was about to link that page to you. The difference between a 1 and 3 person household is 2.63x as much for 3x the size of the household. The economy of scale on food is much greater than that difference.

There are also several other programs where the number of children play a factor.

For example, in HUD it's quite common for a waiting list to be sorted and each person given a number of qualifying points, each system is left up to local determination as to how to award points but it is very common to give additional points to people with children.
www.dupagehousing.org...
www.sfha.org...

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.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:21 AM
link   
"Volunteer Duty", Cole!



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Maine has a 4.7% unemployment rate.

It has been dropping for a couple of years.....

Maine BLS tables




In Dec 2014 there were 655,700 people employed in Maine according to BLS statistics. Today there are 658,900 people employed. 3200 more people are employed, but the claim being made is that the 9000 who lost SNAP went to work. The numbers clearly do not add up. Instead it appears people are simply going without. This is not a reform that makes the system a so called hand up, it's simply cutting people off the roster who still need the help.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

edit on 20-7-2015 by Aazadan because: double post



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


The economy of scale on food is much greater than that difference.
How much greater?



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.
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.




edit on 7/20/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
Food for poor = corporatism
Billions for corporations = helping the middle class


When I give food to the poor they call me a saint.
When I ask why the poor have no food they call me a communist.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
How much greater?


I don't know, I only know what food costs for myself and I'm single with no kids. I don't have the differences in costs per ounce memorized between different sized canisters of food, nor do I have the ability to go out and learn by buying things in bulk.



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.


For food stamps specifically? No. But all of the programs taken together do result in a situation where there's a financial incentive to have children. I think that most people have enough class to not do that for that reason specifically (and it's not like raising a child is a labor free activity either) but a lack of financial consequences does lead to people being a little less careful than they would otherwise be.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




The numbers clearly do not add up. Instead it appears people are simply going without.

The ones who are not going without are likely to be turning to petty crime...and that increases the cost of living for everyone else...there really is only one winner in all of this and they are the people whom are not affected by it in the first place



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




but a lack of financial consequences does lead to people being a little less careful than they would otherwise be.

Right. Because welfare recipients have unlimited funds at their disposal so they can spend more freely than those who don't.



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
What these people can't work three 8 hour days out of a month????



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   

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?


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..
edit on 20-7-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2015 @ 03:12 AM
link   

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..


$5/day is a lot relatively, if you're single with low income (the types of people that have to work under this program) it's closer to $2/day, atleast here in my part of Ohio.
edit on 20-7-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)







 
52
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join