You don't know me to say I seem angry....nice try.

I just believe in working and not expecting something for nothing which I have seen first hand. Don't assume

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comment(s).

IMO this seems highly relevant.
People can be eligible for food stamps and receive them.
Then at some point they have to prove they have some kind of job or participate in "work training" to remain on them.

SNAP money funds "work training" provided by states.
"Work training" can simply be "take a class."
"Take a class" can simply be "apply for a grant or aid or scholarship for free school."
State funded seminars such as "how to improve your resume" or "how to use the internet to apply to jobs online" would count as "work training."

SNAP roles going down so dramatically because people may be refusing to fill out paperwork for grants or scholarships to go to school, or refuse to take state sponsored seminars on how to apply or look for jobs?

That's pretty telling IMO.

Overall, I see the real problem with all this kind of thing, as being because as a society, we haven't collectively made up our minds what we are trying to do.

Are we trying to see to it that no one has to starve? Are we trying to make sure no one gets too many freebies? Are we trying to micromanage people's personal lives, so that we feel better about ourselves?

That's why I asked earlier, for the rest of the story on this particular instance. What I see over and over again, are alternating appeals to sympathy for the less fortunate, then catering to the most suspicious and resentful.

I almost never see straightforward problem solving.

I believe it is easy to demonize the impoverished,, quite simply

the idea that 'merit' and 'hard work' are the only factors in someones income or how much they 'deserve' to survive is a pitiful one,, in my opinion


but that is a discussion for another day,,

when it comes to snap, over half are kids and senior citizens who are not likely to be earning much income, obviously and about 90 percent of them receive NO OTHER ASSISTANCE


the ability for people to continue eating through difficult times should not cause such pettiness,,,imho

Exactly...Right on.

Who is going to go claiming they need food to survive unless they really need it.

Of course there are always some to take advantage of some things but the needy shouldn't be penalized.

The needy aren't being penalized.

Requiring unemployed people to participate in work training isn't a penalty.
Instead, it is a way to help them gain employment.

I am all for helping those in need. I see nothing wrong with having a training program or expecting able bodies (not those that can't) to try to find a job

I think when they put welfare on debt cards it sent
the wrong message. Folks used to have to go pick up
the food at a commissary. Mostly bulk packages.

why shouldn't those on welfare pay with the currency of the times?

Too easy and too convenient.



Those on welfare don't "Pay" for their food. If they did
they wouldn't need welfare.

Its true.
There is no sacrifice of labor or time involved with using welfare gifts.
The animosity stems from others that must sacrifice time and labor to obtain the same.
That's what it all boils down to.
If the same gifts bestowed in welfare systems were equally available to all then it would not be such an issue.

Nobody complains about the air in the atmosphere that we all share. If air were to be bottled up and sold, then people that got the air as a gift would be just the same as welfare recipients.

Why should I have to work and pay when they don't?
Why should I be punished for being able to provide my own way?

We expect life to be fair but it is far from fair.

Having a welfare 'level of survival' sets a standard of society's requirement of survivability. If society establishes that something is required for survival and provides it to some, it should be provided to all.

If welfare says all persons shall have $50 per week for food then all persons should get $50 per week for food. Whether they need it or not.
Taxpayers GIVE the welfare recipients their benefits thru taxes on their labor and time. The recipients GIVE nothing back. The standard is lop-sided, thus, animosity.

everyone pays for food, except in a shelter

money can be traced back to many sources, the last one using it is using it to 'pay' for something

'civilized' society doesnt require anyone be given anything, it merely RECOGNIZES that everyone has basic needs,, those who work can cover their own basic needs but employment is not a given and when people are in stages of unemployment they also need basic needs met,,,,,,those who are able pay towards the taxes so that the 'general welfare' of those who cant are still met and if those who are able become unable, the same is there for them

taxpayers all CONTRIBUTE at some time to many things that they may not directly see a benefit from, thats part of living in a society

people without children still pay the taxes that go towards schools, hopefully because we realize the GENERAL benefit to society that the next generations be educated

the same is true of taxes that go to basic needs for those who dont have their own means for a period of time,,,

we realize the GENERAL benefit to society that citizens , especially the elderly, disabled, and children who receive the bulk of the benefits, have the basic needs to live,,,

This is actually entirely false. Not surprising, since the reason why most societies CHOOSE to help their members in need, make a rotten, self-centered job of explaining why they do it, especially to themselves.

Lots of people, especially those who indulge in resentment, like to pretend that the entire reason to feed the hungry, is because they get to feel generous when they allow it. But the actual reasons a society chooses to care for all of it's members, are much more practical and much less sentimental. Those reasons include such things as that it is much better NOT to have to experience dead bodies in the street every day, as a normal part of getting about; not having to watch handicapped children suffer and die in pain and loneliness; and of course, not having to even think themselves, about whether they will continue to be so lucky as they are in the present.

The problem with establishing a POLICY of requiring training or work, in order to receive "benefits," isn't in the IDEA of it. It's in the actual administration of it. Policy decisions tend to be executed entirely blindly, without rational thought, or attention to specific details. Especially if they are initiated by resentful people intent on refusing help to anyone they imagine may be malingering.

The establishing of this requirement, will inevitably result in people who SHOULD be awarded help, being told to suffer instead.

The only way to truly do this well and right, would be to spend the tax money necessary to have competent and knowledgeable people with extensive investigative powers, to administer the program. However, since the idea of qualifying everyone in this way is based on refusing to spend money on people in need, no one who DOES promote such a policy ever votes as well to pay what is required to execute it competently.

Like I said before, I HAVE BEEN on the receiving end of welfare.
I KNOW what was required of me. A bit of paperwork and a whole lot of praying. It was free value requiring nothing from me. I worked my way off it, not all can or do.

Its obvious there is resentment from the 'working class' that pays for this. However the subject is having to do something proactive to get food stamps. I could have stated many things that I pay taxes on that I do not agree with.

Personally I don't care about it anymore. I see people complaining about it all the time. I attempted to see the issue and understand it.
While I may see something doesn't mean I have any business with it.
Perhaps if more people minded their own business our lives would be easier.

Welfare was not always there and may not be in the future. Much of the world exists without it. Be thankful we live in a society that looks after our unfortunate. It may have its problems but at least its there if you need it.

This is what makes me laugh about some of the threads you see and many other people, all you see is :
God bless you, god is watching over you.
Have a blessed day, god will show you the way.
yep!
Oh, as long as it doesn't cost me a penny

90% (Yes, I have the data, lol) of the conversations here are discussions that explore what is wrong with the world. Personally, I', a flip-sider.
For every issue of what is wrong I would like to see discussion of what is right. An equal share of complaining and praise.
What is this general imperative to refute, argue and establish a negative? Living in a world of negatives is just so...dismal.
I believe it is a direct result of the NEWS media. Negativity sells papers (Air Time, Click Bait). Many are being manipulated and don't even realize it.

How difficult is it to reread the OP and respond in a purely positive way?

I find this tom, coming from the UK and probably knowing something as fact and hasn't been through the 'media filter 'I am disregarded to some extent. Usually a subject has two sides and depending on what side your on you will endorse it, but will not want to hear the other side.
Lots of 'buts and if only's!
Or they just ignore you