Last week, House Republicans pushed through legislation to reduce spending on the federal food stamp program known as SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The caterwauling from some objecting to the cut conjured up images of the waifish Oliver Twist being shouted down when he asked for seconds during mealtime at the orphanage.

Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern called the legislation “one of the most heartless bills I have ever seen.”  Texas Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee said the House was tossing hungry children into the abyss.

Not quite.

SNAP’s annual budget has increased four-fold in a little over a decade, from $18 billion in 2000 to $80 billion today, with one out of seven Americans receiving food stamps. The Great Recession drove more people to food stamps and that accounts for most of the increase, but also Washington—Democrats and Republicans—changed eligibility requirements to make it easier to get food stamps.

The Republican proposal cuts $40 billion out of SNAP over the next ten years, which amounts to about five percent, and these are not reductions that take food out of the mouths of hungry children.

Half of the savings will come from tightening requirements for able-bodied adults between 18 and 50 without dependents.  Under the 1996 welfare reform law passed during the Clinton administration, those adults were limited to three months of food stamps out of any three-year period without working at least 20 hours a week or participating in a job training program.

But over time, various waivers to those requirements expanded eligibility. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of able-bodied adults without dependents on SNAP rose 164 percent from 2007 to 2011, accounting for 10 percent of all recipients in 2011 (the latest CRS year available).

The legislation saves another $11.6 billion by eliminating “categorical eligibility;” that’s where individuals automatically qualify for food stamps if they’re already getting other federal assistance, such as welfare or SSI.   A General Accounting Office report found that 39 states or jurisdictions using categorical eligibility had no asset test at all, meaning it was ripe for abuse.

Individuals enrolled in other safety-net programs can still qualify for food stamps, but they have to sign up and meet eligibility requirements.

The legislation also closes the so-called “heat-and-eat” loophole.  Currently, if a low income household receives any assistance with their heating bills, they qualify for an increase in their SNAP benefits.  Some states abuse this provision by sending $1 or $5 to the home which, according to the formula, can trigger as much as $130 a month more in food stamps.

The bill is now headed to the Senate, where it will likely fail. Even if it passes, President Obama will veto it.  All the while, critics of the legislation will trot out the worn hyperbole about starving children.

 

 

 

 

bubble graphic

119

bubble graphic

Comments

  • FungoJoe

    Don't forget the school lunch and breakfast programs you are paying for.

  • Im grill

    I like the argument many of you make. I know some people cheat the system so let's cut it all. I agree I know some right wing crazies so never vote republican on any issue. Same argument.We help those in need and if some people abuse it that's wrong but we still help it is the right thing to do. We could hire more people to investigate such things but that cost more than what we lose in fraud then you would complain about that. We should cut spending, but not on the backs of those in need.

  • Hop'sHip

    I will give Hoppy credit for not telling us that SNAP recipients were all surfer dudes who used their assistance to buy lobster. Hyperbole exists on both sides of this issue. I would say based on the GAO report, eligibility standards should be tightened to reduce abuse of the program. It does seem odd, though, when we learn how income inequality in the country has reached record high, our priority is to reduce assistance to those on the bottom.

    • bulldog95

      Thats what you take from this, that the first priority is to reduce assistance to those at the bottom?

      Out of all the posts on here today you didnt glean any insight whatsoever did you? I think its quite clear that most people on here have no problem with someone getting foodstamps if they can not for whatever reason provide for themselves. That compassion ends when we run into people that choose to better themselves.

      To put it in simpler terms, if you cant because you cant then its ok, if you cant because you wont or dont want too then its not ok.

      I am still waiting on my question to you yesterday. Does the president have the authority to enforce only parts of a law?

      • Hop'sHip

        You are right, dog, I just don't get it. I have never been on food stamps, but just consider myself lucky, rather than resentful of those who are. I don't know their particular circumstances and thus am not in a position to judge. You seem to be more aware of the abuse and more qualified to judge. I get more upset when I hear of the billions that disappeared in Iraq.

        As for your question, I didn't know you had directed it toward me. I am not a lawyer so I don't have the answer. It is not unprecedented, however. A simple visit to Politifact yielded this:

        The Medicare prescription drug benefit, passed under President George W. Bush, was changed several times after its initial passage.
        Both that law and the recent health care law lay a government program on top of a complex private market system, said Ted Marmor, a professor of health policy at Yale University.
        "Patches on a patchwork mean making a coherent quilt very difficult," Marmor said.
        Even though the country had about two years to get ready for the Medicare drug program, about the same as with Obamacare, some pieces were not in place when the program launched, said Jack Hoadley, a research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.
        "States were worried that bunches of people would show up on Jan. 1, 2005, and not be able to get their prescription drugs," Hoadley said. "So some of them started picking up the tab."
        Later, Hoadley said, the Bush administration pulled money from another fund to reimburse the states.
        The law required insurance plans to set up systems to keep an eye on people who took many different medications. The goal was to make sure the drugs were compatible. The purpose was sensible but as of 2005, the technology wasn’t ready.
        "The decision was made that while that requirement was still there, there would be no enforcement until they had time to get things up and running," Hoadley said. "It took several years of saying ‘Lets not focus on this; it’s not the most important thing’."

        http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/sep/25/tom-graves/rep-graves-says-obama-has-changed-aca-19-times/

        • bulldog95

          I will admit that I just pulled a democrat move here, I stopped reading when I read Bush. Typical blissful person that can only blame Bush.

          • Hop'sHip

            Wait a minute. You asked if I could site something similar to what Obama is doing and I gave you an example. Exactly what do you refute in my example. So you reject it because Bush was the President. I gave you what is the closest and most similar situation and you pull the "blame Bush" card? You are the one trick pony here. Please don't ask a question if you refuse to consider the answer. Let O'Reilly and Mathews play that game.

          • bulldog95

            No, I asked you if a president is allowed to enforce only parts of a law. I didnt ask you to site anything. Its a yes or no question. You just choose to answer it in a way by saying Bush did this...

            Theres an old saying that two wrongs dont make a right.

  • Jim

    A bill purporting to save $40 billion over ten years or balance the budget in ten years or do anything over ten years is a sham. Most of these ten year plans are back-end loaded, and nothing much happens in the first six to eight years. Then next year's Congress writes next year's laws, and these wonderful budget balancing acts are eliminated and forgotten about. Acts is all they were in the first place.

  • Millionaire$ for Capito

    Senator Robert C. Byrd claimed his two most regretful votes were Civil Rights and Airline deregulation. The GOP wants no regulation or gummint at all. They've busted the unions and gave Wall Street it's wish list. Most of all, they hate the President. Good Americans.

  • 2XLPatriot

    +3 with +10 bonus points!

  • ConservativeRealist

    Here's an idea - "Food Stamp Stores" - government sponsored stores that would be the only place one could use their benefits. The stores would carry commodity foods, generic brands, produce, dairy, etc. Vendors would have to bid on getting their products placed based on price. There are some huge companies, e.g. Ralcorp, etc. that specialize in making these types of products. Stop government subsidies for brand name products. If you are truly in need, you should be grateful for the help and it would motivate many to go to work.

    • TD

      Not a bad idea. I also think a lot of the medical procedures that are paid for by Medicaid should be done at a gov't facility. Eg, catarac surgery. I bet 95% of catarac surgeries are for senior citizens yet we pay some doc 6K to 7K each procedure and they do 20+ in a day.

      Wow, that's a lot of money and an easy example how you start moving towards a balanced budget.

      • bulldog95

        That wouldnt work because the party you so blindly support would take all that money that you just saved and spend it somewhere else. Heck, they might just give all those foodstampers a raise.

    • 2XLPatriot

      No potato chips, soda or snack cakes and every product is caffiene infused to provide a little motivation.

      • liberty4all

        Now there is a true conservative wanting the government to run our lives by telling us what we can eat.

        • 2XLPatriot

          80% of ALL health care costs in America are spent treating "Chronic illness". Diabetes, COPD and several others. Guess what population trends towards the most chronic illnesses? That's right! the ones on guv'ment asistance. Asthmatics smoking, diabetics eating Little Debbies and drinking Mountain Dew while running over people on their "mart carts" in Wal-Mart. So, to step away from any form of dictatorship or heaven forbid, "A chest beating conservative", let's start making people responsible for their actions! If you are a drain on the system due to your own poor lifestyl habits and are now dependent on guv'ment assistance, you're darn skippy they should be, dare I say, "Regulated"? You want to fix health care and lower costs? Put a $500.00 co-pay for any ER visit related to smoking, drinking or morbidly obese diabetics drinking pop when they come in by ambulance for high blood sugars!
          A true conservative indeed.

          • liberty4all

            Thank god genetics has little to do with one's health. Besides, the ones you describe are the ones who die of massive heart attacks/strokes, etc . . . They also die earlier than others. They are not as much of a financial drain on society as the old "healthy" person who is kept alive into their late 80's or 90's. Quality of life be damned, but at least their alive.

            You're fine with the government telling people how to live their lives as long as your in agreement. What if there is something about your life that the government disagrees with? Unless of course you're perfect.

          • Brandon

            You spend too much time on the internet. Get a life and a job. Maybe then you wouldn't be such a miserable, pinched-face person.

    • FungoJoe

      The stigma attached to such a thing would be just too much for these people to overcome. Can you imagine the liberal outcry?? My gosh, the folks at PMSNBC and the Charleston Gazette will brand you a racist for such a move. We can't have welfare folks shopping at specialty stores. Welfare clients say that there is too much of a stigma with using the welfare debit card as is today. They are ashamed to have to pull it out in front of people at the checkout lines. That is why WV went away from the pink and purple card to look more like a visa card. All about the stigma. The social work attitude that permeates throughout the welfare system would NEVER allow such a thing.

      • Hop'sHip

        Fungo: You once told us you had worked at DHHR. Did you get fired from there perchance?

        • FungoJoe

          No. Like most of the smart ones at DHHR, I moved on to a much better job and employer. Hopship, I'd like to see you work for 2-3 years at the Kanawha County DHHR office taking welfare applications. You wouldn't be able to hack it. Its a whole different world of entitlement. Even the liberalest of the liberals walk away from that job shaking their heads in amazement at the entitlement generation. Seen it first hand. And that was before Obama and his entitlement giveaways.

          • bulldog95

            I can picture hiphop and TD working at that office now. I picture some "customer" yelling at them because they didnt get their stamps, the card was stolen, that someone needs to pay that 800 electric bill. (by the way that electric bill is usually that high because they keep the heat to 75 in the winter with the front door open while they are wearing a t-shirt and shorts)

            Speaking of waste, how about last year when the electric was out last June. People lost food at the end of the month and had like 2 days before they got July's foodstamps. Did they wait it out, nope, they got the entire month of Junes refunded. Some offices were told to not even try to verify with AEP if their electric actually went out.

  • rick g

    I agree that the Snap program needs to be improved. I'm just not a fan of some who has a six figure tax payer funded salary, has received way more $ in farm subsidies than most SNAP users will see in their life time, as well as tax payer funded trips and meal money being the ones screaming about these entitled leaches abusing the system and mooching of the government.

    It will also be interesting to see if the Grocery Store-food lobby pushes back at all.

  • Hillbilly

    I vote Matt for President..

    +1

  • leroy j gibbs

    Living off the government is now a career choice. I am suprised pierpoint college hasn't offered a degree in it

    • Hillbilly

      They don't have to.. every person who has been on welfare is happy to assist anyone else who wants to learn how to do it.

    • ConservativeRealist

      They do...it is called the NGSL - National Guaranteed Student Loan Program, operated by the Office of Financial Aid. When the student loan rates were going up, the Dems raised the hue and cry and blocked it because, heaven forbid, we touch a federal entitlement.

    • 2XLPatriot

      Be patient Gibbs. It will happen.

  • GregG

    Here is a thought Hoppy. If you and the republicans want to cut food stamps, then go tell all your Big Business buddies to bring jobs back to America and start paying wages high enough that a person isn't living in poverty and eligible for food stamps. Same goes with healthcare. Instead of fighting to support some CEO making $40-$50 million a year while "you are" subsidizing food stamps and health care, why not start fighting against the greed of big business? I damn sure haven't seen a commentary on the wealth of the likes of Walmart and the treatment of their employees. The republican party has created this Big Business Monster, so either live with it or slay it.

    • wvman75

      My big business buddies said to tell you it was democrat policies that forced those jobs out of the country. But nice try, though.

      • GregG

        Well considering that the wealth of big business and the super rich are at record highs, I guess you should be supporting the democrats and their policies.

        • 2XLPatriot

          They had to send the jobs overseas because very few in America want to work and even less can pass a drug test.

          • bulldog95

            Lets face it, some of these folks wouldnt even work as a taste tester in a pie factory.
            Some of them dont even want to lean on a shovel while working for the DOH.

          • Brandon

            As opposed to people like you that just play on the Internet all day? You're not working. All you do is post ignorant, non-facts, ranting against other Americans.

            GET A JOB!!

      • Shadow

        You forgot to mention the actions of the Unions.

    • zerotolerance

      GregG instead of attacking the Big Business buddies of Hoppy maybe you and your minions should contact our state delegates and senators who allow such delectable pay scales to state employees that they are right at or much below the National Poverty Rate of about 24K for one income provider for a family of 4. You know the ones that cannot afford heath insurance provided by the state because the PEIA premiums are too much $$ and its a choice between health insurance or keeping the lights on. You want to harp on Big Business time after time on here and yet the same damn thing is happening in your own backyard and the high rise suits and white hats are your delegates and senators of this state.

      Your delegates and senators who the vast majority are democrats and have been for numerous years created a workforce dependent upon the very state for which they work for!

      Do you not find that ironic?

      YOUR OWN BACKYARD AND YOUR OWN DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS DONE THE SAME EXACT THINGS YOU SHOUT OUT YOUR RALLYING CRY ABOUT!

      • Brandon

        YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

        Does putting it in CAPS with an exclamation point make it true? Yeah, that is what I thought.

        • zerotolerance

          Typical liberal argument...........

    • CaptainQ

      GregG, would I be completely remiss if I pointed out that Obama and the Democrats cut businesses (big and small) a HUGE favor by leading the charge in Congress to delay the mandatory requirements of the ObamaCare on them all for one year? And yet, neither the President nor his party were willing to grant the same exact one year delay to individuals. Why was that? Because the Dems, like the GOP, are at the beck and call of the business community for support and campaign funds. Experts are now saying that the so-called insurance exchanges will NOT be up and ready in many U.S. states by 2014. Granting individuals a one year delay could help in getting those set up and running more efficiently. Oh well, since when is the government in Washington EVER interested in being fair to the people they represent?

      The truth is, BOTH parties, Dems and GOP, are in the pockets of big business. To say that one party is while the other is not just doesn't ring true.

      • liberty4all

        +1

      • GregG

        And haven't I, on more than one occasion stated that I'm not a big fan of President Obama? Haven't I also stated on more than one occasion that I was not a big fan of "Obama Care"? I am very much aware that bowing to big business isn't limited to the republican party today. But I also know who started the trend. And I also know it will never be stopped. Nor will we see our economy turned around.

  • TD

    On this one I agree with Republicans. It is sickening to be in a store and see someone covered in tattoos spending food stamps, usually in the middle of the day when it appears they have just got out of bed. Drug testing for this kind of assistance is also a good idea. That being said we need to end the tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, voted for by Capito and kept in place by her, so these people at least have the opportunity for a job that can pull them up the ladder.

    • Hillbilly

      I know a couple on food stamps that have low paying jobs. They only get 20 - 40 dollars a month in food stamps.. Hardly worth it, huh? That is lucky to buy a bag of potatoes these days. Needless to say, one of them always trades her stamps to someone else for cigarettes.
      TD forgot to mention that half the ones he sees in convenience stores using food stamps are still wearing their pajamas.

      • Shadow

        With gold chains and expensive cell phones....

    • bulldog95

      There you go again spreading more misinformation. The whole tax break for shipping jobs overseas is such a load and just in case you didnt know it, allow me to educate you.

      Its a deduction for the expense of moving. Its a one time thing. Also this deduction can be taken if a company moves from WV to NC, not just overseas.

      So lets go ahead and do away with this tax deduction and keep all that money. Guess how much it is projected to keep over a decade. If you thought a couple of billion you are no where close. If you are thinking higher, you are wrong. Its much less, around 170 million over the next ten years. Thats right, around 17 million a year, enough to wipe out the debt.

      Again you little little person so full of bliss, its a one time deduction, not something year after year. Its not something that allows companies to write off billons of dollars in taxes. I have pointed this out to you before but you are so blissful that you refuse to see the truth for what it really is.

  • CaptainQ

    Hoppy, when raw emotions enter into ANY issue or situation, all of the facts go out the window. Even if the stats and facts favor the GOP on this bill, the mental picture of starving children will resonate with the majority of Americans, causing this to become yet ANOTHER PR nightmare for Republicans.

    Seriously, is the GOP trying to torpedo itself lately? Bad enough they're going to be blamed (and rightly so this time) for causing a government shutdown and now THIS too? The Food Stamp program, like ObamaCare, is here to stay, as the British would say, 'warts and all.' Trying to stop/hinder either of these programs (for whatever the cause) will only be viewed as negative by the majority of the American public.

    I know that in the past, I've often decried the actions of the Main Stream Media on its coverage of things like this. However, in BOTH of these cases (Food Stamps, ObamaCare), there's no need for them to twist/distort the truth at all! The GOP's actions are self destructive this time around! No point in trying to use a wrecking ball on a building that already collasping in on itself.

    Actions like these could help break the historical trend in off year elections in recent times, with the party in power in the White House always losing seats in the House and Senate. No political 'dirty tricks' are necessary from the Obama Administration to detail the GOP now. That 'train' has already left the 'tracks.'

    • TD

      why would you equate Obamacare with food stamps? Obamacare, an idea from the Heritage Foundation, forces people to buy health insurance so they don't get a free ride off the rest of us. You completely misunderstand the program.

      • CaptainQ

        Thank you, TD, for presenting all of us with the argument the Dems are going to use to try to pin ObamaCare on the GOP. Bottom line is, no matter where the idea originated from, the President and his party rammed it through Congress to make it law. ObamaCare passed the House and Senate without a single Republican vote. No 'smokescreen' will change that well documented fact.

        Now, why equate ObamaCare with Food Stamps? It's all in public perception. In the arena of political, 'image' is 90% of the battle. Though the majority of Americans (by any poll you wish to cite) dislike ObamaCare, forcing a government shutdown to try to stop it will be viewed negatively. Tampering with the Food Stamp program, whether it is correct or not to do so, will also carry a similar negative public perception. That's where I was attempting to make the link between the two.

        • TD

          Q, my point is Obamacare forces people to take personal responsibility for their healthcare. Isn't that what Republicans always talks about? taking personal responsibility? I know a lot of people who do not have coverage, they go the the hospital when sick or hurt, your and my premiums are MUCH HIGHER to cover the fact they don't pay. Now equating that with food stamps? Makes no sense.

          • CaptainQ

            If, as you are implying TD, that ObamaCare is at its core a Republican idea, why didn't any of them vote for it back in 2009?

            Since when has the Federal Government ever been about personal responsibility? To a degree, the many social programs created/expanded in a genuine sincere effort to help the poor have somehow transformed into entitlement program to keep the poor in America both dependent and destitute. Don't know how you solve that dilemma. ObamaCare isn't as much about personal responsibility as it is about enriching all of the participating private health insurance providers with a 'guaranteed' pool of customers (which is the reason why they all came on board with this). ObamaCare, like the Food Stamp program, DOES have good intentions and DOES have positive aspects to it. However, the central question of ObamaCare has never been answered. Just where will the Federal Government come up with the hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue to fund all of the premium subsidies and their share of the individual state's expanded Medicaid premium payments? The United States cannot continue to borrow funds from China or to simply 'create' extra money out of thin air. Even if ObamaCare is as great a deal as the Democrats (and the Obamafans here) say it is, the bottom line is, where will the Federal money come from to completely pay for it all?

          • ConservativeRealist

            TD, I would have to disagree with you. Obamacare vastly expands Medicaid - a government program, which will allow even more people to receive an entitilement. Further, it raises the costs of healthcare for the working to population in order to pay for the expansion. How is that forcing people to take responsibility? Many of the cost projections coming in, now that the healthcare exchanges are a reality, are 40% higher than originally predicted.

          • FungoJoe

            Socialized medicine is NOT, and I repeat is NOT, about making people responsible for their own healthcare. Quite the contary.
            Our health insurance premiums would go down alot if what you say is true. However, under Obama/ClintonCare premiums are already on the rise. Some by as much as 100%. Why do you think the labor unions are up in arms about Obama/ClintonCare? It is going to cost them millions of $$$ more than their current plans. Not save them any $$$. More liberal non-sense from the Usual Liberal Suspects.

  • Medman

    It is all about buying votes from the poor and uneducated voters, period.

    • ConservativeRealist

      The poor who don't have to prove that they are legitimate in order to vote...

    • JJ

      This is what it's all about. This is the real story here.

    • liberty4all

      I could be persuaded with statistics, but I was under the impression the percentage of poor who vote is very low. Additionally, while I generally disagree with those who support welfare programs from the government, I wouldn't call them uneducated. I would call them liberal or progressive - they simply have a different view of government and its role in our lives than I do.

  • Brian

    If a person only receives SSI, that equates to $660 a month in total income, and they can only receive that if they have a verified disability. Hoppy, you can justify the cuts in the SNAP program any other way you like. You can twist statistics to suit your argument if you like , I really couldn't care less . However, when we have truly disabled people only making $660 a month and they are one of the examples you use to justify the cuts, destroys your credibility with anybody that has a heart or a soul!

    • Joe

      Nobody is twisting statistics. Disability, food stamp and welfare fraud is absolutely rampant. How can you say that isn't so? Just take a trip to your local convenience store.

      My compassion ends with fraud and deceit. Honest people are tired of paying the bill for a significant number of lazy and entitled people.

      Bottom line - people who are legitamately disabled, hungry or poor will receive the benefits they deserve. I will gladly send my tax dollars under that scenario.

      • Mac

        If welfare fraud is rampant then you need to target the illegal activity that is going on. You do not punish law-abiding citizens for the criminal acts of others. Cutting benefits for all punishes those who do NEED it and does nothing to those who don't.

    • Mtnmama

      I totally agree with many arguments being stated here. However, EVERYONE is missing one huge point and that is how DHHR counts what income you have coming in such as SSI or SSD or wages, child support. These are all counted diffrent some are used to help you some to hurt you. Such as you can have 690$ in SSI & 690$ wages from working 20 hrs a week, both have 2 kids & live in apts in the same complex & have same deductions. So one would think the would both receive 300$ in FS right? Wrong the mother who is non disabled recieves more because her income is countable income vs. non countable income. Now many may feel that is ok. However, I do not and I'll explain why. These programs were put into place to help the sick & the poor. So I believe that as long as a disabled mother/ father has minor children that family group should recieve the extra since they have no ability to work extra or take a better paying job. Now once the children are out of the home then the FS should be reduced. That mother / father I'm sure had no intention of becoming disabled.

    • ConservativeRealist

      You raise the issue of a, "verified disability". I used to do SSI evaluations for a living and became burned out on seeing people who simply don't want to work. They would claim chronic back pain but had no problem disclosing that they rode ATV's, went bowhunting, easily climbed into tree stands to go hunting, and split firewood. When pressed for an explanation they would say that their problem was intermittent but, amazingly, their symptoms diminished during hunting season. Disability is supposed to be, "...the inability to maintain gainful employment for a period of twelve continuous months...". It has become, "I don't want to work...", or, "I don't want a job that pays less than..." - not true disability. Even worse, "disability" has become a right-of-passage on some families with parents applying for disability for their kids almost as soon as they can walk... I have seen the abuses and it soured me on the entire processes.

      Further, those on "true disability" wouldn't see the proposed cuts. The California surfer dude who, "doesn't want no blankety-blankin job" would be, as he should.

      I have repeatedly seen these arguments touting the, "disadvantaged" on this site and others and am anxiously awaiting when we, as a nation, are going to hold them accountable and make them responsible for their own situation. We have created a nation where people no longer have to be accountable for taking affirmative control of their lives and being compelled to actually do something to improve their lot in life.

      When you have more people getting benefits that those paying for those benefits your society and your economy is doomed. Karl Marx tried a fix and it lasted less than a century...1912 to 1991 oh, and over 25,000,000 people died during that, "grand experiment...why do so many want to try and replicate it here in the U.S.?

      • Robert

        Amen brother...very well spoken...thank you for putting to words what I witness every day around the rural area in which I live. While they collect their disability checks...then head to the woods to hunt and fish or ride their high dollar ATV's...I get to go to work every morning to help pay for their lazy lifestyle!!! It drives me crazy...hey wait...couldn't I qualify for a monthly disability check for that???

      • 2XLPatriot

        I'll list a few of the "Disabilities" I've come into contact with as a Registered Nurse:
        1. 19 year old high school dropout on SSDI because "I can't read or write." (A cureable problem).
        2. 23 year old on SSDI for "Social anxiety disorder" but, ends up in the ER EVERY weekend, drunk from a bar or party, OR after being arrested for selling Xanax.
        3.46 years old on SSDI and welfare for morbid obesity and COPD from smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day.(Still smoking). Usually has over $1,000.00 cash in hand from "playing bingo". (Right!)
        4. 22 years old on SSDI and welfare for chronic back pain with no history of injury and multiple diagnostic studies show "normal". 2-3 times a week in ER for pain pills, cutting self with a knife while skinning a deer or increased back pain from dragging deer out of the woods or crashing an ATV.
        5. 21 years old on SSDI and welfare for depression. Never been employed, lays around the house making depression worse because of "Boredom" and "Nothing to do". (A job would really help the boredom).
        I'll stop there. These are just a few from my early days that still stick out in my memory.

        • bulldog95

          Growing up as a child there were 12 total families in our neighborhood. Of those 12 only 5 of them had job, all of them in the coal mines. I remember asking my parents what the other homes did, where did they work, and I was always told that they didnt work. As I got into my teen years another family was added to the working roles and one retired.

          That is when I learned what was going on. Able body folks refusing to work. Able body folks that were first in line at the church a mile away on food pantry day. Able body folks that stayed up all night smoking pot and drinking beer. Able body folks that worked harder at beating the system to get foodstamps, disability, and whatever else they could. Able body folks that would go into old mines and steal copper and anything else they could take to a recyling plant. Able body folks that would spend all day in the moutains gathering moss to sell to whoever they sold it too. Able body folks that could go hunting and fishing. They were very able bodied for everything but one thing, and thats called getting a JOB and keeping a JOB.

        • FungoJoe

          I would like to make a small correction in your view. SSDI (Social Security Disability Income) is for people who have worked for a living and then become disabled. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is for the people who are disabled but have never worked or have very little work history. SSI is the program that the Clintons prostituted in the early to mid 1990's. That is when people who claimed Bi-polar disorder or anxiety disorder got coverage. These are the able bodied people who just don't want to work. The way the Clintons prostituted the system was by allowing ADHD and ADD to be classified as a disability. There was a rush to get kids classified as ADHD. Kids now are getting $660 monthly checks that the parents spend on their meth and such. The Clintons induced and made it very incentive for parents to drug their children. Big incentives for trial lawyers, as we see many advertise for such clients. The trial lawyers were rewarded by getting 33-44% of a disabled persons settlement award from Social Security.
          Doctors are allowed monthly, and many times more, office visits that are billed to Medicaid for Med Checks. This gives doctors a nice string of patients and guarenteed income. They see the patient for 5 minutes or less and then get to bill for a complete office visit.
          School systems nationwide were incentivfied by the Clintons to get kids on ADHD meds. Schools systems get additional funds just on the number of kids "classified" as disabled or ADHD. Sometimes that can amount to millions of $$$.
          The Clintons were smart about it, they spread out the $$$. Everyone got a cut, but the taxpayers. As ALWAYS with liberal policies, the taxpayers get the shaft.

          • aloraw

            I agree with you on everything except the Bipolar disorder being able bodied and not wanting to work. I have bipolar disorder, do not collect disability, but I can see why people have. My last job was able to set me up to work from home on my bad days, but if that hadn't been the case I would have been fired a long time ago. Those were the days that the idea of getting dressed and walking out the door was so overwhelming it had me in tears.

          • 2XLPatriot

            My mistake. Thinking "Diasability" automatically went to my fingers.

    • Brandon

      It is the poor people that are destroying this country! We all know they wouldn't be poor if they weren't lazy.

      They are all frauding the system too. Food stamps don't pay for food, (even thought I've seen people complaining about seeing them during the day buying soda and junk food) they only pay for their DRUGS.

      All those Social Security Disability people are lying too. Doctors are LYING for them to be able to get their disability claim approved.

      All the job creators HAVE to go to other countries because Americans don't want to work anymore, they just want to take their drugs and be lazy. The job creators have no choice but to use Chinese labor forces being paid real wages so they can support their middle class families the proper way!!

      It if wasn't for the poor, our country would be a better place.

      God is good and do I hear an AMEN?

      • J the C

        Brandon, whatever you're on will make you a fortune on the black market. High? Vavavavoom! Hope you remember this post some day when you need help. How dare you mention the name of the Lord in this context? "If it wasn't for the poor, this country would be a better place"? You are plain evil!

    • J the C

      ditto Brian