Socialism for the Rich and Capitalism for the Poor !

[newwurldmn]

You are pivoting. This isn’t about nuitrition. no one has argued the fact that you can’t buy organic yogurt under SNAP. Nor has anyone argued that SNAP should offer supplemental health insurance to medisave.

what does life expectancy have to do with the standard retirement age of the working population? What are you advocating?

you are the straw man here. Not the GOP bill as stated in the article.

well, I was hoping you'd connect bricklaying w/low income (why I posted graphs/link). There sure are a lot of low income jobs that aren't back breaking but their mortality age is still lower. Stacey working as a receptionist getting fat w/crappy health insurance will still live a shorter life. Since we don't have bracketed retirement age by income to reflect shorter life spans and we refuse to have adequate healthcare coverage for everyone, lessening the income ratio hit from food seems appropriate.

I do agree the GOP makes strawmans for all their safety net cuts though. They ought to play ball on immigration if they want to see an impact on labor shortages. All this "make kids work" and bring people out of retirement nonsense is getting old. In any case, I went to look at the SNAP requirements because republicans often lie. There are two categories, the general work requirements are already imposed up to age 59, they want to bump 49+ to the harder work requirement provision and strip states from having a say (so much for states rights). Cali/NY. residents already have a higher income hit due to housing so the state having a say is important imo.

The General Work Requirements
SNAP has two sets of work requirements. If you are age 16 – 59 and able to work, you will probably need to meet the general work requirements to get SNAP benefits. The general work requirements include registering for work, participating in SNAP Employment and Training (E&T) or workfare if assigned by your state SNAP agency, taking a suitable job if offered, and not voluntarily quitting a job or reducing your work hours below 30 a week without a good reason.

You are excused from the general work requirements if you are any one of these things:

• Already working at least 30 hours a week (or earning wages at least equal to the federal minimum wage multiplied by 30 hours)
• Meeting work requirements for another program (TANF or unemployment compensation)
• Taking care of a child under 6 or an incapacitated person
• Unable to work due to a physical or mental limitation
• Participating regularly in an alcohol or drug treatment program
• Studying in school or a training program at least half-time (but college students are subject to other eligibility rules).

If you have to meet the general work requirements but you don’t, you are disqualified from getting SNAP for at least a month and must start meeting the requirements to get SNAP again. If you get back on SNAP and then don’t meet the requirements again, then you are disqualified for longer than a month and you could be disqualified forever.

 

[Money Trust]

For you who don't know your history, this was one of the main causes of both French Revolution and Russian Revolution. It rarely ever ends well.

I seriously doubt that anything will come of this from Americans. All "they" have to do is run a few "cop kills black man" stories in the media and the average American will forget all about what's going on. That play works every time.

 

[SimpleMeLike]

While the Fed generously bailed out everyone who held more than $250,000 at Silicone Valley Bank and other banks that have recently failed or about to fail in the near future, they're going all out to block poor people from getting their food stamps.

This is really fucked up to the core and hypocrisy at its worst.


House GOP Pushes Bill Targeting Food Assistance for the Poor

The legislation would impose more harsh work requirements on certain recipients amid growing food insecurity.

More than a dozen House Republicans are expected to release legislation Tuesday that would impose more harsh work requirements on certain recipients of federal food aid, a clear signal that the GOP intends to target nutrition assistance in critical debt ceiling, budget, and farm bill talks.

Led by Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), the measure would “expand the age bracket for able-bodied [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] recipients without dependents, who have to meet complicated work requirements,” according to Politico, which obtained a copy of the bill ahead of its official introduction.

Johnson’s legislation, which currently has 14 Republican co-sponsors, would broaden the SNAP work requirement age bracket for able-bodied adults without dependents to 18 to 65, adding 16 years to the current age ceiling of 49, Politico reported. Former President Donald Trump previously proposed raising the age ceiling to 62.

What does Johnson's SNAP bill do?

Johnson's bill, the America Works Act, reforms the work requirements for able-bodied adults without children who are receiving SNAP benefits.

• It raises the maximum age for work requirements from 49 to 65
• It cuts down on a state's ability to waive work requirements
• It emphasizes work requirements for able-bodied adults without children

Good Morning schizo,

If you can not beat them, join them.

 

[Cuddles]

You are pivoting. This isn’t about nuitrition. no one has argued the fact that you can’t buy organic yogurt under SNAP. Nor has anyone argued that SNAP should offer supplemental health insurance to medisave.

what does life expectancy have to do with the standard retirement age of the working population? What are you advocating?

you are the straw man here. Not the GOP bill as stated in the article.

let me make it less cryptic.

Short version: Benefits should not be tied to age of retirement if the age of death is not the same across the board. If someone is expected to die sooner due to income, they ought to have access to benefits sooner.

Long version: Time. If life were fair, we'd all get the same allotment and enjoyment. Life isn't fair, you get cancer, timeline's cut short. We're a democracy, one person, one vote, "all men are created equal", equal protection under the law (lol), yada, yada, yada....by extension gov attempts to make people's time equitable. You see it in punishment under the law (in theory), compensation in judgments (to some degree as income comes in play).

You can't make time so we monetize it instead. You give me your time, I give you a salary. We often talk about "redistribution of wealth" but we never really discuss "redistribution of time". If I cut a group of people's schooling/education or healthcare or wages to move to private industry, it's not just money you cut, you cut that group's ability to make informed decisions on nutrition and health practices (annual checkups, sex ed, time in the gym you can't afford due to OT from cut wages) and ability to extend their time line. I said you can't make time but you can buy it. If I'm wealthier as a result of the aforementioned, I can buy myself some more years by affording an hr to go to the gym, healthier food, better schooling, better lawyers to get me less time incarcerated, better docs....etc.

So we don't just have income inequality but a lifetime disparity. Since we're unwilling to fix it, then it makes sense to make benefits weight adjusted by age to address it. Having the same cutoff for all when the average lifetime is not just means aggravating time inequality.

Gov. can address both quantity and quality of life....quality is subjective and paradoxically the poors have higher satisfaction (must be all those unhealthy habits making life worth living) but quantity, quantity is easy.

*puts roach down*

 

[ktm]

Leave it to the media to take a proposal that tries to insert some balance and fairness into a system that has already tilted toward socialism too far - by putting out an article saying the right wing extremists want to starve your children.

Shocking.

 

[TheDawn]

For you who don't know your history, this was one of the main causes of both French Revolution and Russian Revolution. It rarely ever ends well.

No French Revolution and Russian Revolution started because the MAJORITY of the people were poor and were barely surviving not simply because they were staving. The main reason was there was no middle class. That was the problem. As long as you have some kind of middle class where people can still get by and own properties and the extremely poor are the minority, there won't be any revolutions, not violent ones because the middle class won't risk what they have and will join the upper class, the rich to help stop any revolution or at least not join the revolution. With just the minority trying to start something, it's easier to put it under control.

This is why it's so important to have a large middle class and not to have too large of an income disparity.

 

[newwurldmn]

Your opinion is all well and good but that's a strawman argument.

Snap benefits don't account for working life. It's just an arbitrary age regardless of your situation that's not consistent with Medicare or any other government program. And this bill refers to able-bodied people. If your back is broken at the age of 49 from being a bricklayer, the restriction doesn't apply to you.

let me make it less cryptic.

Short version: Benefits should not be tied to age of retirement if the age of death is not the same across the board. If someone is expected to die sooner due to income, they ought to have access to benefits sooner.

Long version: Time. If life were fair, we'd all get the same allotment and enjoyment. Life isn't fair, you get cancer, timeline's cut short. We're a democracy, one person, one vote, "all men are created equal", equal protection under the law (lol), yada, yada, yada....by extension gov attempts to make people's time equitable. You see it in punishment under the law (in theory), compensation in judgments (to some degree as income comes in play).

You can't make time so we monetize it instead. You give me your time, I give you a salary. We often talk about "redistribution of wealth" but we never really discuss "redistribution of time". If I cut a group of people's schooling/education or healthcare or wages to move to private industry, it's not just money you cut, you cut that group's ability to make informed decisions on nutrition and health practices (annual checkups, sex ed, time in the gym you can't afford due to OT from cut wages) and ability to extend their time line. I said you can't make time but you can buy it. If I'm wealthier as a result of the aforementioned, I can buy myself some more years by affording an hr to go to the gym, healthier food, better schooling, better lawyers to get me less time incarcerated, better docs....etc.

So we don't just have income inequality but a lifetime disparity. Since we're unwilling to fix it, then it makes sense to make benefits weight adjusted by age to address it. Having the same cutoff for all when the average lifetime is not just means aggravating time inequality.

Gov. can address both quantity and quality of life....quality is subjective and paradoxically the poors have higher satisfaction (must be all those unhealthy habits making life worth living) but quantity, quantity is easy.

*puts roach down*

 

[Cuddles]

Your opinion is all well and good but that's a strawman argument.

Snap benefits don't account for working life. It's just an arbitrary age regardless of your situation that's not consistent with Medicare or any other government program. And this bill refers to able-bodied people. If your back is broken at the age of 49 from being a bricklayer, the restriction doesn't apply to you.

No, I get it's black and white if we go by a number and definition of what's a working body, I'm saying it shouldn't be and needs to consider the gray areas. In any case, how 'bout discussing the merits. Has SNAP changed as of late? (I know it did during COVID). Why was this black and white SNAP cutoff ok 10 yrs ago but suddenly it's not? Because we need the workforce? Right off the bat, I disagree w/states having no input given cost of living and minimum wage restrictions by state.

 

[zghorner]

I seriously doubt that anything will come of this from Americans. All "they" have to do is run a few "cop kills black man" stories in the media and the average American will forget all about what's going on. That play works every time.

 

[Money Trust]

View attachment 309006

lol. Exactly!