More Than 500,000 Americans Stand to Lose SNAP Benefits

a reply to: introvert

I do it all the time with people here in Phoenix. Its easy. They follow you around and let you know what you can and cannot buy. At the register they pay with their SNAP card. Then I hand them cash. Any given Sunday especially after the 1st and 15th of the month you will find thousands of people doing this in parking lots across the valley. Its how we hard working people make our money back.

a reply to: xuenchen

"We should only give food charity to people who already have jobs."
-Uncle Sam.

a reply to: introvert

Riiiight, that why in MO the federal SNAP workers all got fat bonus checks for signing up so many new members and then they discovered that many of those members did not, in fact, qualify, so instead of penalizing the workers, they penalized the people who had been receiving the benefits by making them pay it back after they'd been told they qualified.

A QC process stops that crap from happening in the first place.

This is truly sad.

How many would perish if the great and mighty government ceased to exist?

a reply to: Cobaltic1978


"Cobaltic1978, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

a reply to: Snarl

The average taxpayer pays $36 per year for SNAP. I would rather pay out for that than for Corporate subsidies and tax shelters. Seriously, $36 to keep kids from being hungry is very very little.

Even the Heritage Foundation thinks we should remove the sweetheart deals for Corporations. Corporate Welfare Wastes Taxpayer and Economic Resources

Hungry children vs CEO salary? Yeah. I'll pick helping the hungry...

- AB

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is truly sad.

How many would perish if the great and mighty government ceased to exist?

A lot because you'd have to include the entire public sector too.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
This is truly sad.

How many would perish if the great and mighty government ceased to exist?

Many less than you think, because there aren't that many rich people hoarding all the resources.

The poor would eat the rich in a matter of days.

a reply to: Sargeras

I think you underestimate the scale of the problem.

We have large portion of the population who only know how to consume what they are handed and don't have any skills they can use to even try to market themselves in a survival setting.

Sure, they'd eat the rich, but with no one producing, that will only feed them for so long. The super rich in this country don't have enough wealth to cover the federal budget for a single year even if it was all confiscated and most of that is not in a form of wealth people can readily use to keep themselves fed, clothed, etc.

So what happens then? The party is over and they turn on the rest of us. Then they turn on each other.

They don't have the skills to produce. It will be pretty poor fun for anyone caught in it.

a reply to: Sargeras

A remarkably accurate and realistic answer to an unrealistic question.

originally posted by: Sargeras

The poor would eat the rich in a matter of days.

And afterwards?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sargeras

The poor would eat the rich in a matter of days.

And afterwards?

Afterwards...? The EXACT same cycle would start again.

Wow, there sure are some cold hearted people on this board.

I wonder how they would feel if the tables were turned.

Watch out. Karma's a Bitch.

originally posted by: eluryh22

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sargeras

The poor would eat the rich in a matter of days.

And afterwards?

Afterwards...? The EXACT same cycle would start again.

"Those that fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

Those that know history will understand it when it happens again."

-anon

a reply to: whyamIhere
I wasn't contradicting you- I was pointing out that, at least in the state I live in, if there are children in the household, benefits will not be halted. I can't speak for how other states are deciding who does or does not qualify for assistance.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Sargeras

The poor would eat the rich in a matter of days.

And afterwards?

No more greedy pieces of crap hoarding resources means no more artificial scarcity.

Means plenty for all, because make no mistake, there are plenty of resources for all to live well.

a reply to: Now2016

If the point of a social program is to help people get off it, then everyone on it will have to or should have to lose their SNAP someday.

And the cold truth about income of any sort is that you are never ready to lose it. You just do and adjust.

a reply to: Sargeras

If there is plenty to go around, then why kill the successful?

Just a hobby?

a reply to: xuenchen

There should be a work requirement as long as you aren't disabled.

However, benefits for food are relatively cheap and denying people food seems petty considering how much money we waste killing other human beings and on over-priced healthcare.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Now2016

If the point of a social program is to help people get off it, then everyone on it will have to or should have to lose their SNAP someday.

And the cold truth about income of any sort is that you are never ready to lose it. You just do and adjust.

The purpose of snap is not to get people off of it.

It's purpose is to keep the hungry from killing to get your food, because that is what starving folks will do to eat, just like any other lifeforms.