Maine food stamp policy should be standard for every state

First off, yes, the source is biased. But assuming this is all true, this is an awesome idea. I wish Colorado would do this.

 

in larger states and cities you would quickly run out of productive things for people to do unless you take away paying jobs and move them over to the food stamp crew.

 

These types of plans are the only sensible way to handle welfare.

But there are many out there who will brush it off by calling it racist.

 

I think it's a great idea. Anyone taking assistance, should give something back in return. I'd like to see this same kind of thing applied to welfare, and unemployment as well. Everyone works for their money...whether you are employed or getting assistance.

 

I'm sure there are tons of volunteer jobs that would love to not need more volunteers. Soup Kitchens...wait I got this....uh...

wait so what is there to do that wouldn't take a paying job away from someone?

 

Highways, parks, streets, etc etc always need cleaning. There is always something that is dirty in the cities or neighborhoods. Lawns that need mowing perhaps for the elderly, and a number of of things that can be done.

I mean could you imagine if all those lazy folk with no children had to get off their ass an be productive in their areas? My god the streets would be so nice and clean.

Hell what about repairing homes? Fixing them up in some of the more run down areas to help bring the life back to those neighborhoods?

There is a lot that can be done, and the work is never ending.

 

So what if it takes paying jobs away from people if its government jobs? Imagine if welfare people did all the janitorial and other low education required jobs currently filled by paid people. Government would be saving money now that they wouldn't have to pay these people. That money could then be used someplace else or better yet left in the pockets of people who earned it. When they spend it in the economy it will create more private sector demand.

 

There are 1.8 million people in NYC who get SNAP benefits.

Lets say only 1/3 of them would be considered "able bodied"...

That's 600,000 people to keep busy for 20 hours a week.

Who is going to manage all these people?

How much is that going to cost?

 

I confirm, this is from Portland's newspaper. There are also many new "innovations" that Maine implementing to control fraud and laziness. Every other state should look into what Maine is doing.

"Starting in October, food stamp recipients between ages 18 and 49 will have to work at least 20 hours a week, volunteer or participate in a work-training program or they will lose their benefits after three months. The rule has been reviewed by the attorney general’s office and submitted to the secretary of state"

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/09/29/big-changes-next-month-for-maine-welfare-recipients/

 

Because then those people lose their jobs and get on food stamps.

Then you need to find them something to do to keep busy.

Think past the end of your nose.

 

Holy hell.... they weren't kidding when they called it the City of Broken Dreams.

 

I imagine that number will go down once they are forced to do some work for those benefits. Especially if the nature of the work is someone grimy, or uncomfortable such as cleaning streets and picking up trash. They are then incentivized to look for a job they like more that provides the same or more pay than foodstamps.

 

There is a small fringe element of individuals out there, whose primary job, is to not have a job. I have seen warehouse workers purposely drop pallets of materials weighing hundreds of pounds on to their foot with the intent to break bones and go on disability. A few hours of intense pain is worth weeks of disability and worker's compensation pay. They can milk the system for months, perhaps years with this sort of injury.

They will lie and cheat the system faking injuries, self-inflicting injuries and various maladies to go on workers compensation or government disability.

Liberals will deny people like this exist...they think every single person on government welfare..including the young and able bodied are something out of a Dickens' novel. They will deny that some folks are simply dishonest and don't want to work....and will do anything not to...including work at, not working.

These liberals I mention will call Maine's suggestion to make food assistance recipients work for their meals, draconian. Something akin to a medieval torture chamber. How dare the government, in any form, challenge someone's Constitutional right to free stuff.

This is the liberal mindset...it is naive, and frankly a childish point of view.

People, and I include the poor, are really not all that noble at times...but a liberal will never admit to it.

 

How much is it going to go down?

What jobs are they going to find? Are there several hundred thousand job openings in NYC?

 

You're correct, of course. Much better to keep paying bums and freeloaders for nothing.

 

It is actually.

 

....what? So you'd rather take money (that would be spent in the private sector) away from someone working, and give that job to someone for free, and you think that will some how add money more into the economy?
Just because the govt stops paying someone, doesn't mean that money is redirected into the economy. It's not, it just reduces that depts budget and the money disappears, or goes into another dept, which negates any savings anyway.

 

They can always get other jobs. Savings from not paying public union employees and decreased welfare rolls would allow states to decrease taxes, this will mean more money in the pockets of everyone employed in that state. And seeing how the majority of people live paycheck to paycheck that means more of their own hard earned money is left in their hands. Which they will likely spend, spurring economic growth; or they will invest likely leading to a better future for themselves.

I am thinking past the end of my nose... you are not. You worry about one outcome, less government jobs. But what does that really mean for the economy?

 

I fail to see your issue..............

so we should just continue to support them cause they was born ?

 

Possibly, although workfare is something that other countries have implemented before, as well as other states, like Wisconsin. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare

 

I have no real principled stand against work for benefits. The only thing that matters is whether or not it quickens the end of those benefits.

Forcing someone to work 20 hours a week is depriving that person of 20 hours of time to look for employment. It is a policy based entirely off indignation and presumption, and has nothing to do with bettering the system or encouraging productive behavior.

Were Maine to instead require documented job or skill improvement efforts, at least 20 hours a week, that would be effective. Require proof of attending job fairs, skills development courses, writing and resume courses, networking events, etc. This policy is nothing more than a gesture to sadists.

 

I'm not opposed to the concept, but it's not practical for everywhere.

 

Community projects that can't get funding. Park landscaping, road maintenance, graffiti removal, cleaning public buildings... in San Francisco there was a big issue a few years back because the city budget couldn't afford to replace light-bulbs fast enough in street lights. They had the bulbs, just no man power to find the burnouts and replace them.

There are a lot of things that will not get done or won't get done as often, because we can't afford the man power. Those things could get done with volunteers.




​

 

Perhaps. Then again, I'd suggest that the reason the SNAP utilization is so high in a place like NYC is because the cost of living is so high.

In areas where wages more adequately match the cost of living, workfare is more feasible.

Granted, Detroit shows us what happens when the main earners of an area flee a city due to the rising costs of maintaining a large benefits system.

 

It is not........