Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


I don't buy the twist of how everything ties together in your post, but still find your "solution" interesting.

What percentage of people do you figure would be needed to peacefully non-participate, and for how long?

How is this any different than the non participation that currently exists via unemployment?

Thanks.

reply to post by onequestion


I tend to agree with your underlying message about bringing life into this world. I mean, some would argue that having kids is our only real purpose in life and everything else is a mirage we've created to feel better about existence and the inevitability of it. Also, civilization and the related developments prolong human life to allow us to further procreate the species. That's one view, I guess.

whilst we're busy slagging off or defending people on benefits, the real cheats and scroungers (the rich) keep pushing the divide and rule crap. THEY are the cause of poverty and injustice. they are taking all the money and power!!!!

reply to post by xuenchen


I'm sure its appreciated. On another thought it would be nice if there was an employer (global even better) data base that was AI assisted that had everyone registered on its list that was unemployed and it found suitable jobs that where definitely going to hire and all you had to do is accept the proposed job position or wait for another chance.

The data base would keep reaching out to those unemployed until they are employed. In turn no need for mass social supports or welfares except for those in areas that are waiting for the system to contact them...

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by webedoomed


Hi, you'd find all that information in From Dictatorship to Democracy. But IIRC you'd just need a few percent of the population actively engaged in visible nonparticipation to turn the tides. Once people saw a few million people getting in the streets, protesting loudly, and shutting down the system like Gandhi did to the British, you'd quickly see the tides in this country reversing for the better. As Sharp describes in his book, the exact same nonparticipation techniques have worked in countless countries around the world. They can work here as well.

What percentage of the population would you say got actively outraged about the proposed war in Syria? Maybe one percent? And we sure shut that plan down pretty fast.

Working together, we can stop this too.

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Sounds like an interesting idea.

However, the problem is deeper then people just not looking for a job. Its really hard to figure out what companies uses what medium to hire. Not only is it hard to figure that out its tiresome to try and figure out what company is actually hiring and what amount of crap is actually just advertising tools utitlized to get the company name in front of more people.

While your saying lets make it easier for people to get jobs, in the corporate world the opposite is happening. To to the affect of ego and our modern corporate culture, everyone in an attempt to climb the corporate ladder they are implementing more forms of control that are making more and more diffucult for people to meet unreasonable requirements for simple jobs.

reply to post by shaneslaughta


Well, if they opened up "SNAP Stores" they could provide good, decent paying stocking/checker jobs to people that currently don't have them. Maybe a win/win?

Look, I'm fairly liberal ... but I think that if everyone paying taxes to help people really in need, they should be helped to the maximum benefit.

There are a lot of food banks out there, and I'm sure people on food stamps take advantage of their services. Would going to a food bank any less "embarasing" than going to a designated food stamp grocery store? The food stamp grocery store would probably have a much larger variety, and could even offer ethnic foods for certain religious groups.

Junk food sadly is cheaper, it really grinds my gears that if I want to eat healthy it'll cost me twice as much.

Most people I know on food stamps are actually working, and I'll agree that if people made more money at their jobs we wouldn't have to shell out as much taxpayer money to help feed them. It really is a double edged sword.

I didn't want to offend anyone, but I call it like I see it. Thanks for the replies, I always value other's viewpoints that aren't identical to my own.

If this is gonna get stopped only one way. Drug test each and every person who applies, fail test , no food card. I have seen folks in my area stand at the grocery store and SELL their handout, most of the time for 50 cents on the dollar. They have zero problem finding a buyer. Drug test each person in the household of the recepient, failed test, no hand out. When I was young to go on Government assistance was shamefull, now a days, if you dont have a food stamp card, your looked at like there's something wrong with you. I detest Government handouts. It's why those who really need the help. Dont get it. Get up off your deadbeat arse and support yourself.

reply to post by therealguyfawkes


Okay, I'm with you so far. There was a thread not so long ago which mentioned 10 million marching to D.C. in April or May of this year.

I can see how that could evoke change.

Next question, how do we attempt to promote this campaign without being shutdown and/or infiltrated by the alphabet organizations?

Would we not be seen as "domestic terrorists" and thrown in jail before enough steam was established?

I'm not trying to shoot down your idea, just cause, I'm wondering if you have a viable plan to effectively organize and protest in such large numbers.

Thanks.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Im pretty sure this is the most ignorant post ive read all day.

You really dont have any idea how hard it is for people who are in a truly tough position in their lives with little support system to get ahead.

Its harder literally by the week to sustain life with increasing inflation and less and less money cirrculating in the economy.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


I like the idea. Problem is it's easy to fool a urine-analysis, and hair testing costs monies.

Is it worth it to hair test everyone each month? Maybe so. Someone needs to put it into the equation and make sure.

Also, investing in R & D to effectively lower the price of hair testing would be the best option.

onequestion
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

 

Its really hard to figure out what companies uses what medium to hire. Not only is it hard to figure that out its tiresome to try and figure out what company is actually hiring and what amount of crap is actually just advertising tools utitlized to get the company name in front of more people.

Yes 1 agrees on your shared points. The AI would have to be advanced and require all employers to work with it. The employers would enter their request data and the AI would do the rest in searching the list for their potential workers. Workers are contacted by system representatives who then set up interviews and drug testing (off employers site) and the worker is given start date or reason why they cannot start. If reason exist that employee cannot start due to alcohol drug addiction or criminal history or just not qualified for position a secondary process is then set for them to obtain drug counseling or training and education. This data is not tied to employer data base to prevent favoritism insures quality workers and database is not for employers its tied to some gov program designed to assist its civilians find employment and or education and potential counseling for those who need it.

onequestion
While your saying lets make it easier for people to get jobs, in the corporate world the opposite is happening. To to the affect of ego and our modern corporate culture, everyone in an attempt to climb the corporate ladder they are implementing more forms of control that are making more and more diffucult for people to meet unreasonable requirements for simple jobs.

Yes this approach would prevent the brown nose affect from reaching the top which basically allows for yes qualified to work but may prevent more qualified from obtaining those positions and would allow for the qualified to advance. Why @ the same time preventing potential employers part of the wall street influence) from failing due to failed management hires who just smiled better but may not of been as qualified as another who may just want to go to work and then get back to their personal life. So work places would be more integrated with various minds and potentials as opposed to who wore the better suit or kissed up more during an interview hence a reason for interviews off worksite. I think many want to work but its a struggle out here to find what you may be qualified for so many are losing hope as they see the changes.

It will take a lot of work but something can be done 1 feels onequestion.

NAMASTE*******

reply to post by Ophiuchus 13


Right i agree but the problem is that everyone in charge of influencing any sort of policy or influencing any sort of change on the levels were talking about got to where they are through our current system and are least likely to want to change it or see how its flawed due to their inability to empathize with their fellow human.

reply to post by webedoomed


I dont think creating more formalities for people in a struggling economy is going to help anyone.

I agree that we shouldnt be supporting the idiots who dont want to contribute. It doesnt change the fact that its increasingly harder to contribute and that there is probably more people then we think we are doing everything they can to deserve a better life but the opportunities are dwindling.

Imagine if you didnt have a support structure in your life, where would you be with no support?

reply to post by openyourmind1262


You really should change your name or open your mind. the complexities of the reality are much deeper than you realise or deny.
what you are suggesting is nazi methods.

reply to post by onequestion


Young lady I rasied two children all by myself. I never took a damn dime from the Government. I paid my bills, I did without, I sacrificed alot. Never once did I consider Government assitance. I took RESPONSABILITY for my actions and did what ever the hell was needed to get by. If that was doing without lunch, I did. If that was working 14 & 15 hours a day. I did. If it meant food on the table and clothes on my kids backs. I did what was needed. Never once did I bitch about it. At one point in time I was a full time electrical superintendant & waited tables at night. If folks took some damn pride in their lives we would'nt be the damn hand out nation we are now. So if my post was stupid to you.. So be it. Oh now i see your from Palm Beach.....explains alot.

reply to post by onequestion


Sad but true logical points. 1 will remain optimistic that some plan will manifest to assist many, even if the odds say something different...

Got to be a way to do it.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


Great im glad the world you grew up in had that much to offer you but im saddened by the fact that you think creating more rules is going to help anything.

First off your comparing out current economic and political climate to one thats probably decades old and non existant. This is apart of the problem. Rather then analyzing the situation from its current paradigm all your doing is subjective analysing and basing it off irational ways of thinking.

We need less rules not more rules.

Please realize the world you came up in vastly different.

reply to post by openyourmind1262


wow, you did all that on your own? who looked aftr your kids while you worked? lucky you not getting ill or having any accidents.

reply to post by onequestion


I'd definitely not be using what little I had on drugs. That makes no sense whatsoever.

I nearly lost my support structure due to being a jerk on NYE, which you know of.

What did I do? I shaped up. 3 weeks sober today.

It is idiotic to be using what little you have on substances that are going to prevent you from integrating in with society.

No handouts for people who are on drugs. If they can't handle that, let them be their own worst enemy.