As in training them to do jobs that so far can’t be replaced by deep-learning neural networks and robotics? As in training them to compete with fresh graduates right out of college? How will their “plasticity” land them a new job safe from automation, especially if they were already barely scraping by pay check to pay check?
All SNAP is good for is millions of hours of wasted time.
And teenagers use it to cyber sex each other.
Awful
2 Likes
I think that if you scroll up far enough you’ll see my comment that it’s time we Americans begin defining both the eligibility for UBI as well as its attributes. I don’t have answers to your questions, but I do think we need to consider them and talk about them as soon as possible.
I’m checking out on the issue here of SNAP, though. I’ve made my position plain, and further talk of UBI threatens to hijack the topic.
I think we are on the same page when it comes to automation and UBI. I am also not a fan of SNAP and other means-tested welfare programs, but I just don’t think removing a program aimed to provide subsistence living for the most vulnerable Americans should be removed before we have already worked out how to implement UBI.
Also, since it’s called universal basic income, the eligibility should be every American citizen. Preferably over 18 so couples don’t try to have a bunch of babies just to get more UBI money.
I’m just going to leave it at that.
That’s the idea behind it.
They are not paying them , they are cancelling food aid unless I am otherwise mistaken.
So if these people really can’t work (and I’m sure a large percentage have major issues) how will they feed themselves ?
Here you are making a value judgement. You are saying people who don’t work should not be assisted, if they starve, not your problem.
2 Likes
Please read the policy. You’ll avoid posts like these.
2 Likes
You can explain thanks.
1 Like
Don’t you want to understand something before criticizing it?
2 Likes
Did you read the NYT article, I did. These are not small minor changes. Kids and adults will go hungry.
The rule would also prevent households with more than $2,250 in assets, or $3,500 for a household with a disabled adult, from receiving food stamps. Those changes would strip nearly three million people of their benefits, the department said, and nearly one million children would lose automatic eligibility for free or reduced-price school meals. The proposal received 75,000 public comments, which were overwhelmingly negative.
It’s best not to use this kind of weak sauce argument line with me. I’m good at going down the rabbit hole of details. Ask Bojack what happened in the Climate Change thread.
2 Likes
Wrong rule, genius. Did Bojack get an aneurism from you misreading sources and then haughtily pointing to your mistakes as proof of your prowess?
1 Like
But are they starving? I don’t know, just putting it out there. Fast food is dirt cheap in US. And many programs in place to assist.
Certainly millions of homeless, addicts, people laid off, etc suffering in North America
I do think it’s an insane world that spends hundreds of billions on war, and cuts 5 billion in food stamps to 700k people. And here’s Facebook, a stupid pointless website valued at over 500 billion.
World’s gone mad I tell you
If you’re rich folk.
2 Likes
Gone mad I meant to type
Golden rule : Don’t be a wise ass it comes back to bite you. 
1 Like
Makes sense. Motivate people to be smarter with money.
Right now, the law sets a gross income cap of 130% of the poverty line for SNAP recipients — about $33,000 for a family of four. But states use something called “broad-based categorical eligibility” to allow families getting other assistance to receive some SNAP benefits even if their incomes are as high as 200% of the poverty level, as long as they have other expenses that cut their net incomes below a certain level. States like the option because it gives them more flexibility to help families that have fluctuating incomes and still have trouble buying food.
“These are working families who are just above SNAP’s income cutoff,” said Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “What the [current system] does is say to workers that if you want to work a few more hours, you don’t risk losing SNAP because you take the extra shift. So it’s promoting work.”
Dean notes that the change would also eliminate benefits for many seniors and individuals with disabilities who would be cut off if their assets exceed $3,500. Many states have waived the asset limit because they argue that it discourages low-income families from saving, and it’s a huge administrative burden trying to keep track of a recipient’s bank account and other assets.
2 Likes
Thanks for admitting it right off the bat. A lot of people double down to avoid having to tell a stranger on the internet they simply made a mistake. Cheers.
Is this really the case? I have my doubts
Not getting school lunch would make you go hungry right ?
How about crackheads and people with mental illness, ex cons who may not be able to get a job, how are they going to get food ?
For addicts they just spend their money on drugs usually right. Anybody can become an addict. Sure looks like they are going hungry. That’s the definition of not having food right.
Eh ? 