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.

 

Thousands in Georgia finding out they are no longer eligible for food stamps

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Komodo

just another tactic for civil unrest IMO - feel sorry for the people that genuinely need it.




posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Actually, Detroit raised rates on water supplied to Flint and several other municipalities (to cover the costs of failed Democrat administrations). When Flint decided it wasn't going to pay it entered a new water authority with Genesee, Sanilac, and Lapeer counties. Unfortunately, as soon as they announced this the Democrats in Detroit announced they were shutting off Flint's water. With years to go before the new water authority was up and running the Flint River was used as a stop gap source until Lake Huron was accessible. Salts in the water leeched lead out of the old pipe network. Alarms up the chain were ignored at ALL levels.

Democrats in Flint City Council, Democrats in Detroit City Council, Democrats in the EPA, Democrats in the Water Authority. Republican Governor is to blame, makes complete sense.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

The city did not vote to switch to the Flint River. The city voted to switch to a new pipeline and was negotiating with Detroit to continue its service for a year while waiting for construction of new pipeline. But it was going to cost the city more money. The state appointed emergency manager at the time in 2013, Eric Kurtz, made that decision which had to be approved by state. There is documentation showing Kurtz authorizing an engineering contract to figure out how to draw water from Flint River because it was cheaper than what the council wanted to do.

ETA: Choosing to poison people, withdraw food opportunity from people, to save money, is strictly a republican philosophy
edit on 27-4-2016 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I'm not going to hijack the thread further and should apologize for doing so to this extent.

Poisoning citizens, starving citizens, robbing citizens, killing citizens; none of these are strictly Republican ideas. Your partisan blinders may tell you so, but that doesn't make it a fact.

It wasn't a Republican that argued for the right to kill citizens without trial.

It's pointless to argue with someone that already knows everything.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: 200Plus

Yes, I am sick of laws constructed by republican lawmakers that target individuals to make their lives more miserable. I will not apologize for that.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Rural Indiana - I regularly see people whose kids are on free school lunch due to low income, pay no registration fees (Several hundred dollars per kid for "free public education"), but they drive a sweet looking Escalade and go to the Caribbean for spring break and the whole family has new iPhones.

Barely feeding themselves my ASS.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Turn them in since you know them in such a personal way. They will get harassed, and maybe even disappear.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Jamesismadson

Listen here smartly pants. I said those that cant take care of themselves. You must be one of those special people that cant read and understand context at the same time.. A bum can take care of himself. A child cannot. An invalid cannot. ect..

Don't be such a jackass..



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Folks everyone is where they are in life because of the choices they made.
We all have made good choices and bad ones.
People who are living on public assistance have made a series of bad choices and they are expecting that the rest of society will simply take care of them and shoulder the burden of those bad choices.

There are very very few truly poor people in the US. Most "poor" people in the US have homes, utilities, cable or satellite TV, Cell phones, refrigerated food storage, Air conditioning and heat.
Outside of the Western world those material possessions and services are considered a measure of wealthy.

Now many of you will say "stop being so judgemental!"
Stop right there. Life is harsh and reality is the ultimate judge.
i said they made bad choices, however i did not detail those choices. For example, a young person may choose to go to college and get a degree in Computer science, however they failed to study their local job market and realize that its flooded with IT service workers with CS degrees. So now they come out of school with an expectation of finding a good high paying job but run into the harsh reality of the market. They are carrying a significant debt load from student loans and they cant find a job in their area in their field. So they take what ever work they can get and may even possibly be on public assistance.
Now this is a series of bad choices. They failed to understand the local workforce and the employment environment. They took on a huge debt to obtain an education in a field saturated with workers.
They continue to stay in the same market rather than relocate to a more favorable area for their field.
They will continue to make excuses for their condition because people dont like to admit that they made mistakes.
Bad choices.
Not my fault, not my responsibility to support you.
I made my own bad choices and I would really enjoy keeping as much of my income as I can to pay for them, sadly I have been deemed to be middle class and thus able to afford to pay for other peoples bad choices as well as my own.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

I am sick of laws constructed by Progressive Democrats that target whole groups and punish them to the betterment of another group. I will not apologize for that.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Here's something else to consider:

This kind of income re-adjustment happens to all of us at every income level, and it always hurts when you lose money. I know you are going to come back and say that some can "afford" it more than others, but that isn't always the case. Sometimes, you have your money tied up in long-term obligations - things that take payments or installments, commitments, etc. Having to adjust a budget and suddenly find a few hundred dollars every month on the fly isn't always easy and it hurts everyone even if you aren't on public assistance.

But somehow, no one cries for those of us not on public assistance who suddenly discover that we must pick up a new extra hundred dollars to two or even three every month. We're just expected to be able to absorb that and grin and bear it. We're expected to be able to shuffle our budgets and magically make it work just as well as before.

Not only that, but the I always thought the idea of programs like this one was to shift people back onto their own two feet.

We are talking about able bodied people NOT physically or mentally disabled ones.

At what point are they supposed to be expected to begin to stand, and when they do, they WILL lose this money, and it won't hurt any less then than it will now.
edit on 27-4-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Dragoon01

You mean like this:

In Just the Last Four Years, States Have Enacted 231 Abortion Restrictions.

www.guttmacher.org...



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:58 AM
link   
let's take two unemployed women, one has a child, the other has no dependants..

does the mother get food stamps for herself, as well as the child? I believe so.
does she have to jump through the same hoops as the non-mother, well, I believe in my state she does, but not sure about others...
there is no difference between these two women outside of the fact that one has taken on the responsibility of of a dependant, and now can't meet that responsibility while the other decided not to take it on.
so, oh ya, let's starve out that one who took measure not to have the kid!!
makes sense, if your goal is to coerce women to be dependent mothers on welfare!



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psychonautics

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
I know that many here will think that a majority of people in assistance programs could be working but are milking the system instead. Somehow or another they got on the dole and then just became too lazy to go earn some money.

With all the government backroom deals and bailouts for big businesses, plus the tax burden and cost of living on the common citizen, then I say take whatever crumbs the government is tossing your way. These people aren't dumb and lazy, they're smart, hard working and resourceful. Consider all the red tape, paper work and networking skills needed to live well on government and non-profit handouts. Not to mention the creative ways these program abusing deadbeats earn some spending money on the side. I remember going through some neighborhoods in Detroit and having folks flag you down in the street to buy BBQ ribs and some home cooking prepared from food purchased on their food cards. If they are living well on the dole, then they sure don't sound fat, dumb and lazy to me, more like industrious and resourceful.


That has to be one of the most rediculous things I've ever read. Do you understand how welfare works? The government isn't tossing these people "crumbs" US TAXPAYERS ARE TOSSING THEM FREE HOUSING AND FREE FOOD while they drive round in the newest model BMW, selling their perscriptions on the side for a little extra pocket money.

I live around it, I see it every day.

You really gonna take the stance that able bodied people should be able to take advantage of a system for people in serious need, because they went through the trouble to do it? Or because of some misinformed idea that's it's getting back at the man?

The hell...?



Basically my post was addressing how welfare cheats are characterized as stupid, fat and lazy when they actually aren't. I also happen to believe that if there is a government budget for welfare and you qualify, then take what you can get. It won't be much though, even if you're truly disabled.

You can't just apply without solid documentation, so I doubt that there are very many on assistance who don't qualify. Now maybe there are many cases of people on assistance who sell their scripts on the street or buy cigarettes with a food card (somehow) but I doubt they will be driving an expensive car or living in a nice home from doing those things to supplement their welfare income, therefore those people must be doing a lot more to afford that lifestyle.

Not reporting any extra income would of course be cheating, there are penalties for that, they should be enforced. I don't think that such cheating necessarily takes from those who really need it, it just increases the budget for next year, unless it gets cut to help support some other political or corporate interests. I have no problems if they want to make cuts, perhaps it will weed out the biggest cheaters, but I doubt that it will lower anyone's taxes.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Dragoon01

You mean like this:

In Just the Last Four Years, States Have Enacted 231 Abortion Restrictions.

www.guttmacher.org...



No I mean like Socialized medicine, and the Welfare state in general.
You are however diverting the topic into the death spiral of the Abortion debate so....



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Unfortunately when they cut people off from Food Stamps there will be a rise in crime people need to eat and people would do anything to get food for their families I am not agreeing with this I am against people robbing people's homes I am against violence and burglaries but that's what's going to happen when you cut people off from Food Stamps so what is the alternative?



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

Re-read the OP. These are all people with no dependents.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

and that is what I am questioning...
why is one of the women I described more deserving of assistance than the other?


edit on 28-4-2016 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The general argument is that it's not fair to make the children suffer.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: dawnstar

The general argument is that it's not fair to make the children suffer.


It's fair to make the adult suffer whose being responsible enough to avoid children they can't afford?

Don't you usually also complain about people who have children just to collect a bigger welfare check? That's what happens when you base payouts on number of children rather than on what it takes to support whatever size of household they have.




top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join