Posted on 12/09/2019 5:58:12 PM PST by Kaslin
On December 4, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) made a long-overdue and much-needed rule change to the nation’s beleaguered Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as “food stamps.”
According to a USDA press release, “At the direction of President Donald J. Trump, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue today announced a final rule to move more able-bodied recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) towards self-sufficiency and into employment. The rule restores the system to what Congress intended: assistance through difficult times, not a way of life.”
In other words, the new rule aims to ensure that those on SNAP are not taking advantage of the bloated program. For context, consider the following. According to USDA, “in 2000, the unemployment rate was 4% and the number of Americans receiving SNAP benefits was just over 17 million. In 2019, during the longest economic expansion in history, the unemployment rate is 3.6% and yet the number of Americans receiving SNAP is over 36 million.”
Needless to say, millions of able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD) have relied on Uncle Sam (i.e., U.S. taxpayers) to pay for their groceries when they should rely on themselves to foot their bills.
As USDA notes, “With a booming economy that has more jobs than workers to fill them and the lowest unemployment rate in more than 50 years, now is the time for every work-capable American to find employment. In fact, the latest U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) figures show the unemployment rate is 3.6% and there are 7.0 million job openings.”
Put another way, for those Americans capable of working, without dependents, and between the ages of 18-49, get off your couch and get a job. According to USDA data, in 2016, there were about four million ABAWD on SNAP. Of this group, nearly 3 million chose not to work while receiving food stamps courtesy of hard-working taxpayers. This is neither fair nor right.
Although some will claim the new rule is too harsh and punitive, one can also make a strong case that enabling never-ending government dependency is actually far worse for the fabric of the nation. Fortunately, Secretary Perdue understands this point.
“Americans are generous people who believe it is their responsibility to help their fellow citizens when they encounter a difficult stretch. Government can be a powerful force for good, but government dependency has never been the American dream. We need to encourage people by giving them a helping hand but not allowing it to become an indefinitely giving hand,” Secretary Perdue said.
Aside from encouraging ABAWD to get a job instead of putting their hands out for government goodies, the new rule will also save billions every year. In fact, some estimates claim the new rule alone could save taxpayers $5 billion in the first five years, with more savings anticipated as time marches on.
In 2018, the federal government spent a whopping $64.9 billion on SNAP. Not exactly a drop in the bucket, by any means. In 2001, this figure was only $17.8 billion. This is shocking, in and of itself. Although some may blame the 2008 Great Recession for the rise in SNAP costs and enrollment, the facts and figures simply do not support this theory.
Well said, Mr. Clinton. I (and most Americans, I bet) could not agree more.
Needless to say, millions of able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWD)..
WHICH MAKES THIS SOUND GREAT BUT NOT REALLY.
WTF do I care if someone has dependents.
I didn’t tell them to open their legs like whores from 16 on and not be sure who dad was.
I didn’t tell the dads to act like animals with no impulse control. They should be locked up if they’re not contributing.
Although since they’re not likely listed anywhere as the father both the women and the men will continue to act like pigs and keep mooching.
Because we need to keep doing it for the kids.
Or something
I can’t believe that schools are now feeding stations. What happened??
The SNAP economy:
SNAP recipient (2 1/2 kids) takes $600 card (per month)and gives it and the pin# to his drug dealer.
Receives $300 drugs for which the dealer paid $200.
Dealer sends stooge to buy $600 of snack food/drinks and deliver it to local store that pays $400 for it.
Stooge gets $50.
For his $200 drug buy the dealer nets $350.
Next month the cycle repeats.
It's also dehumanizing for those who fall into the dependency trap.
If these girls/women got $ZERO$ for having more and more “daddy-less” children you can BET those females would keep their legs closed.
And this hits at 2 groups dems depend on. The lazy and the sexually irresponsible.
“They should be locked up if they’re not contributing.”
Not a good idea, as it will cost $40-70,00/yr per inmate. Cheaper to continue feeding them. Even better is cutting-off EBT Cards and *making them find work* or go hungry.
I totally agree. They only get FS for the kid/s they have when they sign up. Any they have after that are on their own dime. My sister in law has a woman who lives behind her, she just had twins, prematurely of course which make #3&4 for her and no daddy...... we are footing the bill...personally I think they should be sterilized after the 1st one
. There’s a family in my church, 5 daughters....mom and dad divorced, 3 of the 5 girls have kids, no daddy, not married, so irritating
Can’t let them go hungry.
SNAP is a right in the constitution. Along with gay marriage and health insurance plans paying to get your #### chopped off.
Actually, health insurance itself is not a constitutional right.
Though even a few here seem to think it is.
Next Lib viral meme will include the phrase: “Starving In The Streets”.
Bkmk USDA fraud SNAP
There is no way to stop a universal basic income.
Low cost expert software and industrial robotics will be able to out perform at least half of the American work force by 2050.
There is no way to put that genie back in the bottle.
Federal food assistance programs are immoral and antithetical to the reasons people give justifying its existence. People who care about the welfare of their fellow citizens volunteer at local soup kitchens and donate to local food banks. They do not intentionally insulate recipients from themselves and delegate the responsibility to others.
“There is no way to stop a universal basic income.
Low cost expert software and industrial robotics will be able to out perform at least half of the American work force by 2050.”
Neither statement has been true since the 100 years it has been said.
I am NOT inferring that the humans involved are ‘animals’
BUT
How come there are signs in FEDERAL parks warning not to feed the animals as they become dependent on the handouts?
(Besides you probably look a lot better to that Bear that you are holding out a french fry to..._)
We know a 34 yr old grandmother who has 6 daughters and 7 grandchildren all on the dole.
They all look like fattened steers. I think they should be kicekd off SNAP also.
‘they’ say we are the only country in the world where the ‘super poor’ are fat, have TVs and usually a car or two.
Excellent ‘point’ is notice how the ‘refugees’ from Central America have no problem with 5 or 6 families to a 1 BR apt, a blanket as a room divider works perfect.
A lot of them will pool their money, buy or rent a house and house as many as possible...check out the cars in the front and side yard.
Guess 4 or 5 to a BR is better than a 1 room hut with a thatched roof that leaks, no electricity or running water.
Before they were schooled in welfare etc they would work 2 or 3 jobs and many would hot bunk so they had to get up and go to work when their bed sharer came home, he/she wanted the bed.
> The young woman gives the names of those she slept with.
What? You want last names too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.