Should Food Stamp Recipients have to work?

117 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229
Should Food Stamp Recipients have to work?

Should "able-bodied adults" between 18 and 49 years old who have no dependents be required to work or at least prove that they are looking for a job to receive Food Stamps?

A new government study found that the number of able-bodied adults on food stamps nearly doubled after Washington used the stimulus law to lift a key work requirement.

The report from the Congressional Research Service was sent last week to House Republican Leader Eric Cantor. It comes as House Republicans prepare Thursday to try and block a separate work requirement waiver being sought by the Obama administration for welfare recipients.

The CRS study dealt with the work requirement for a particular class of food-stamp recipients -- "able-bodied adults" between 18 and 49 years old who have no dependents. Typically the food stamp program requires that group to work or participate in a training program at least 20 hours a week to continue receiving benefits after three months. The stimulus law, though, allowed states to suspend the rule from April 2009 to October 2010 -- and most states did.

In that time, the number in that group surged.

The CRS study showed that in fiscal 2010, the last year for which data was available, the number of food-stamp recipients in that group was at nearly 3.9 million. That's up from 1.9 million in 2008.

Though food-stamp enrollment was already rising at the time in part due to the recession, the study noted the number in this group "increased more rapidly than the overall caseload."

Their percentage of that caseload grew from 6.9 percent in 2008 to 9.7 percent in 2010.

The total number of people on food stamps -- formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program -- has grown to 47 million this year, with the "able-bodied" group making up just a fraction of that.

The findings of the CRS, report, though, feed Republican concerns that lifting work requirements can encourage benefit recipients to simply stay in the programs.

The separate proposed change in the work requirement for welfare was announced in July by the Department of Health and Human Services. The department said the states may seek a waiver from the work component in order to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo said.

But Republicans accused the administration of going too far, claiming the move would "gut" the work requirement from the landmark Clinton-era welfare reform package.

The latest CRS report noted that while the stimulus law lifted the food stamp work requirement until late 2010, the law allowing extended unemployment benefits likewise allowed most states to waive those work requirements in 2011 and 2012. Statistics were not available, though, for that population during those two years.

Read more: Study: Number of 'able-bodied' adults on food stamps doubled after stimulus change | Fox News

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

I thought they had to have a job or at least be looking for work. Maybe just in some states? Anyway YES absolutely they should have to work or be looking for a job. My sister is on food stamps and this was one of the requirements. To get her off of food stamps (eventually) the food stamp office started a program to completely pay for her to go to school, gas to get to school, and a $200 a month stipend. The catch was that her spouse who has never worked hardly a freaking day has to go to the office and sit with the counselor there to apply for jobs - which he did not continue to do so. So, what can I say.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"myyams" wrote:

I thought they had to have a job or at least be looking for work. Maybe just in some states? Anyway YES absolutely they should have to work or be looking for a job. My sister is on food stamps and this was one of the requirements. To get her off of food stamps (eventually) the food stamp office started a program to completely pay for her to go to school, gas to get to school, and a $200 a month stipend. The catch was that her spouse who has never worked hardly a freaking day has to go to the office and sit with the counselor there to apply for jobs - which he did not continue to do so. So, what can I say.

It was a requirement until Obama suspended it with the stimulus package. Now Obama is still trying to get around this requirement again by bypassing Congress.

boilermaker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

It must vary by state-- bc I know for a fact that here in Colorado, you have to either be in training/school or actively looking for work. And there are restrictions on what you do that qualifies for training/school.

One of my BFF's father lost his employment last year (lay offs.) He has been receiving TANF (though he has no dependents), bc he cannot afford basic food. This fall he was required to enroll in our local community college (oddly, he is not permitted to finish the BS degree he is halfway through, he has to get another associates degree and is required to go the cheapest college in town....) So now he is in school full time to continue to receive his benefits. He is also looking for work.

I'm just not sure how prevalent this able bodied people getting benefits is.

Maybe the headline should read "able bodied people receiving benefits doubled during worst economic crises of our times (caused mostly by greedy jerks in the banking/housing industry who sank the whole system while making sh!t tons of money for themselves)"

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"boilermaker" wrote:

Maybe the headline should read "able bodied people receiving benefits doubled during worst economic crises of our times (caused mostly by greedy jerks in the banking/housing industry who sank the whole system while making sh!t tons of money for themselves)"

:thumbsup:

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

The real facts:

Newt Gingrich claims that “more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.” He’s wrong. More were added under Bush than under Obama, according to the most recent figures.

The former speaker made that claim Jan. 16 in a Republican debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., and his campaign organization quickly inserted the snippet in a new 30-second TV ad that began running Jan. 18 in South Carolina.

Gingrich would have been correct to say the number now on food aid is historically high. The number stood at 46,224,722 persons as of October, the most recent month on record. And it’s also true that the number has risen sharply since Obama took office.

But Gingrich goes too far to say Obama has put more on the rolls than other presidents. We asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition service for month-by-month figures going back to January 2001. And they show that under President George W. Bush the number of recipients rose by nearly 14.7 million. Nothing before comes close to that.

And under Obama, the increase so far has been 14.2 million. To be exact, the program has so far grown by 444,574 fewer recipients during Obama’s time in office than during Bush’s.

It’s possible that when the figures for January 2012 are available they will show that the gain under Obama has matched or exceeded the gain under Bush. But not if the short-term trend continues. The number getting food stamps declined by 43,528 in October. And the economy has improved since then.
Update, Feb. 5: Revised USDA data released in February showed the downward trend continued for a second straight month in November, when the number of persons getting food stamps was 134,418 fewer than it had been at the peak.

Obama’s Responsibility

Gingrich often cites the number of persons on food stamps to support his view that the U.S. is becoming an “entitlement society,” increasingly dependent on government aid. And he has a point. One out of seven Americans is currently getting food stamps.
But Gingrich strains the facts when he accuses Obama of being responsible. The rise started long before Obama took office, and accelerated as the nation was plunging into the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.

The economic downturn began in December 2007. In the 12 months before Obama was sworn in, 4.4 million were added to the rolls, triple the 1.4 million added in 2007.

To be sure, Obama is responsible for some portion of the increase since then. The stimulus bill he signed in 2009 increased benefit levels, making the program more attractive. A family of four saw an increase of $80 per month, for example. That increase remains in effect and is not set to expire until late next year, according to USDA spokeswoman Jean Daniel.

The stimulus also made more people eligible. Able-bodied jobless adults without dependents could get benefits for longer than three months. That special easing of eligibility also expired on Sept. 30, 2010. Spokeswoman Daniel told us that 46 states have been able to continue the longer benefit period under special waivers granted because of high unemployment. Previously, able-bodied adults without dependents could collect food stamps for only three months out of any three-year period.

Otherwise, current eligibility standards are unchanged from what they were before Obama took office, USDA officials say. Generally, those with incomes at or below 130 percent of the official poverty level, and savings of $2,000 or less, may receive aid. The income level is currently just over $29,000 a year for a family of four.

That leaves the economic downturn that began in 2007 — and the agonizingly slow recovery that followed — as the principal factors making more Americans eligible for food stamps. Officials say that another factor is that Americans today are less reluctant to accept aid than before.

Of those whose income was low enough to qualify, only 54 percent actually signed up in 2002, but that rose steadily to 72 percent by fiscal 2009, the latest USDA figures show (See Table 2).

USDA researchers said the jump in the participation rate happened because of actions by state governments. In a report released in August 2011, the Office of Research and Analysis said:
[quote]USDA: States have increased outreach to low-income households, implemented program simplifications, and streamlined application processes to make it easier for eligible individuals to apply for and receive SNAP [food stamp] benefits. Most States also have reduced the amount of information that recipients must report during their certification period to maintain their eligibility and benefit levels, making it easier for low-income households to participate.

Another reason may be that “food stamps” no longer exist as paper coupons. Instead, beneficiaries now receive plastic debit cards, known as “Electronic Benefit Transfer” or EBT cards, which look pretty much like an ordinary credit card when used in a supermarket checkout line.

EBT cards have been used in all states since 2004, according to the USDA website. The change to plastic cards was done both to reduce the possibility of fraud, and also to reduce the stigma felt by beneficiaries, and may account for some of the increase in participation.

In fact, the program is no longer officially called the “food stamp” program. Since 2008, it has been the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP for short.

Who Gets Food Stamps?

The most recent Department of Agriculture report on the general characteristics of the SNAP program’s beneficiaries says that in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2010:

  • 47 percent of beneficiaries were children under age 18.
  • 8 percent were age 60 or older.
  • 41 percent lived in a household with earnings from a job — the so-called “working poor.”
  • The average household received a monthly benefit of $287.
  • 36 percent were white (non-Hispanic), 22 percent were African American (non-Hispanic) and 10 percent were Hispanic (Table A.21).

Update, Feb. 5: USDA data understate these figures, however, because participants are not required to state their race or ethnic background. As a result, 18.9 percent are listed as “race unknown.”) A more accurate estimate of the racial and ethnic composition of food-stamp recipients can be drawn from U.S. Census data, based on a sample of households surveyed each year in the American Community Survey. For 2010, Census data show the following for households that reported getting food stamp assistance during the year:

  • 49 percent were white (non-Hispanic); 26 percent were black or African American; and 20 percent were Hispanic (of any race).

Note that Census data somewhat understate the total number of persons receiving food stamps, compared with the more accurate head count from USDA, which is based on actual benefit payments. Survey participants may be reluctant to state that they have received public assistance during the year. So the Census figures on race and ethnic background can’t be guaranteed to be completely accurate. But we judge the Census figures to be a better approximation of reality regarding race and ethnic background than USDA figures.

We don’t argue that the program is either too large (as Gingrich does) or too small. It has certainly reached a historically high level, and may or may not grow even larger in the months to come. But the plain fact is that the growth started long before Obama took office, and participation grew more under Bush.

Kevin Concannon, the USDA’s undersecretary for food, nutrition and consumer services, told the Wall Street Journal: “I realize Mr. Gingrich is a historian, but I’m not sure he’d get very high marks on that paper.”

Footnote: There was an earlier easing of eligibility standards buried in a 2008 farm bill that Congress enacted over Bush’s veto. Obama voiced support for the measure while campaigning, but was not present for either the Senate vote to pass the bill or the vote to override.

Both votes enjoyed strong bipartisan majorities. Only 12 Republicans and two Democrats voted to sustain Bush’s veto, for example. Bush didn’t mention the food stamp provisions when he vetoed the bill, but instead cited what he called excessive subsidies to farmers.[/quote]

FactCheck.org : Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Spacers" wrote:

The real facts:

FactCheck.org : Newt’s Faulty Food-Stamp Claim

Thats not the debate. The question is should able bodied people on Food Stamps have to work or at least register for work. Obama is currently trying to go around Congress to waive this requirement.

Napolitano: Obama’s Plan to Waive Welfare Work Requirements is Illegal and Unconstitutional | Fox News Insider

The people in the able bodied group have doubled in two years. That is a fact. If you want to debate whether on not the fact that they no longer had to meet work requirements made a difference feel free.

The CRS study showed that in fiscal 2010, the last year for which data was available, the number of food-stamp recipients in that group was at nearly 3.9 million. That's up from 1.9 million in 2008.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

I would love it if all able-bodied people had a job, which would pretty much make them ineligible for SNAP, but the fact is there's still about 8% of our nation out of work. Many of those people have been out of work so long their unemployment benefits have run out, which made them eligible for SNAP. They are still out of work and now their SNAP benefits are running out, so the President extended those benefits for a short period of time. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Spacers" wrote:

I would love it if all able-bodied people had a job, which would pretty much make them ineligible for SNAP, but the fact is there's still about 8% of our nation out of work. Many of those people have been out of work so long their unemployment benefits have run out, which made them eligible for SNAP. They are still out of work and now their SNAP benefits are running out, so the President extended those benefits for a short period of time. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not.

The President isn't extending their benefits, he is just waiving the work requirement. So you don't think it should be a requirement that they at least have to attempt to find a job to continue their benefits? They don't have to have a job, just look for one.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"boilermaker" wrote:

It must vary by state-- bc I know for a fact that here in Colorado, you have to either be in training/school or actively looking for work. And there are restrictions on what you do that qualifies for training/school.

The latest CRS report noted that while the stimulus law lifted the food stamp work requirement until late 2010, the law allowing extended unemployment benefits likewise allowed most states to waive those work requirements in 2011 and 2012. Statistics were not available, though, for that population during those two years.

This says the requirement was lifted for everyone until 2010, but some states were allowed to waive the requirements for 2011 & 2012 also. Colorado must have chosen not to continue to waive the requirements. I'm glad some states haven't.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The President isn't extending their benefits, he is just waiving the work requirement. So you don't think it should be a requirement that they at least have to attempt to find a job to continue their benefits? They don't have to have a job, just look for one.

Looking for a job isn't an eligibility requirement and wasn't before this. Having a job wasn't an eligibility requirement before this, but your benefits ran out after 3 months if you didn't have one or if you weren't in a training program. The president isn't waiving anything; he's simply extending the benefits period which used to end at 3 months.

"Generally ABAWDs [Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents] between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search." (emphasis added)

Eligibility

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4229

"Spacers" wrote:

"Generally ABAWDs [Able-bodied Adults Without Dependents] between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search." (emphasis added)

Eligibility

Yes it is a little more complicated than just looking for a job, but as long as they participate in whatever program the state requires to help them find a job as far as training and workfare they remain eligible. Obama wants to waive those requirements.

SNAP recipients ages 16 to 59 who are not employed, or are employed fewer than 30 hours per week, are considered SNAP E&T General Population mandatory work registrants, and are required to participate in SNAP E&T. ABAWDs (i.e., SNAP recipients who are at least 18 but less than 50 years of age and are not employed or are employed less than 20 hours per week) are considered mandatory work registrants and are required to participate in SNAP E&T.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Employment & Training

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Just so I know, when are conservatives pro-leaving it up to the states and anti-leaving it up to the states? That's what Obama did, right? He left the work requirements up to the states....

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

I have to revise my stance a little. An able person should work, be actively (with proof) looking for a job, or be a student. There are jobs out there. There are ways to improve one's skills to get a job. It may not be in one's ideal field or it might be in a different field than used to or educated in. One might even have to move :eek: I understand if people come into hard times. But people need to buckle down and take a hard look at how they live while times are good and know that things can surely change. I realize people can come from backgrounds which create greater challenges, but I can tell you from my own experiences (from myself and from thousands of others when I worked) that people need to get out of the pity party and be tougher. People have opportunities here ----STILL.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"Spacers" wrote:

I would love it if all able-bodied people had a job, which would pretty much make them ineligible for SNAP, but the fact is there's still about 8% of our nation out of work. Many of those people have been out of work so long their unemployment benefits have run out, which made them eligible for SNAP. They are still out of work and now their SNAP benefits are running out, so the President extended those benefits for a short period of time. Do I have a problem with that? Absolutely not.

As an aside, I know people who have a job and still qualify for food stamps. Their job just pays too little to support their families.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"myyams" wrote:

I have to revise my stance a little. An able person should work, be actively (with proof) looking for a job, or be a student. There are jobs out there. There are ways to improve one's skills to get a job. It may not be in one's ideal field or it might be in a different field than used to or educated in. One might even have to move :eek: I understand if people come into hard times. But people need to buckle down and take a hard look at how they live while times are good and know that things can surely change. I realize people can come from backgrounds which create greater challenges, but I can tell you from my own experiences (from myself and from thousands of others when I worked) that people need to get out of the pity party and be tougher. People have opportunities here ----STILL.

I think asking people to move is awful. I would lose my entire support system if I needed food stamps and required to move. Moving should be a choice.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"myyams" wrote:

I have to revise my stance a little. An able person should work, be actively (with proof) looking for a job, or be a student. There are jobs out there. There are ways to improve one's skills to get a job. It may not be in one's ideal field or it might be in a different field than used to or educated in. One might even have to move :eek: I understand if people come into hard times. But people need to buckle down and take a hard look at how they live while times are good and know that things can surely change. I realize people can come from backgrounds which create greater challenges, but I can tell you from my own experiences (from myself and from thousands of others when I worked) that people need to get out of the pity party and be tougher. People have opportunities here ----STILL.

Do you work? Your stance is pretty harsh.

Usually people that qualify for food stamps means they cannot afford to move unless it would be an all expenses paid move by the company they have taken a job with. The job that offers that probably pays very well and then they would be off of food stamps, lol. Hell, I make too much for food stamps but I sure as sh*t wouldn't be able to afford to move.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

I don't work. But I am also not asking for food stamps. I have worked - a whole lot!, and I have put myself through school without assistance. It was crazy hard, but when life is hard, you find a way. My stance isn't harsh. I think people should do what they need to do to take care of themselves. Jessica, sometimes hard decisions have to be made for a while until life improves. People have to do what they have to do to take care of their family. It's not ideal to move away from your family or friends. People move all of the time to go to school or to find work. I don't think it's unreasonable. So yes I think people need to work, be looking for work, or be a student - virtually anything except sitting at home collecting tax payer money doing nothing. People need to make genuine effort.

eta: I think it's a giant slap in the face of the hardworking people out there who struggle and do the right thing with people collecting all sorts of free everythings. I am not saying everyone is doing this but there are lots who are. The hardworking people out there deserve help, not free loaders who aren't making efforts.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

As was previously stated though, who is paying for this move? Never mind being forced to leave where you live...which is a ridiculous notion..who is paying first, last and possibly security on a new place? Actual doing the move?

If I choose to move to have a better life, yes it can still be hard but it is MY decision. Forcing people to move for work is just beyond words to me. If there are not enough jobs to go around...then that state needs to figure out how to get more companies to come there.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

I didn't say the State would or should require someone to leave. I am saying that people should move if they can't find a job. And it's so strange that moving is so bizarre to you. I would personally rather move than suffer financially. I'd rather take care of my kids myself than depend on welfare, tax payer money.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Your previous reply makes it sound like one should have to move to get a job and get off food stamps. Personally, yes if I have tried to find work and I was single, no kids and could not find work I would probably look elsewhere. I just don't think that should be a requirement. There are actually few places in the US that I would desire to live in besides Massachusetts so moving would be a major decision for me. I pretty much hate the idea of living in the majority of the states.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

So are you saying you think people should ask other people to fund their lives instead of having to move? And you think it's the States' responsibility to supply their residents with jobs? And that taxpayers should help those who don't have jobs with moving expenses if they can't find a job in their hometown?

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"myyams" wrote:

I didn't say the State would or should require someone to leave. I am saying that people should move if they can't find a job. And it's so strange that moving is so bizarre to you. I would personally rather move than suffer financially. I'd rather take care of my kids myself than depend on welfare, tax payer money.

It's not that simple. You have to take so many other things into account. People are moving away from where I live because they have to go live with family. Others are moving here because they have family here and need to move in with them. Are there jobs here? Not so much. Thus, finding a job isn't their primary reason for moving. Moving somewhere where there is work may be way more expensive. Moving for a job would mean paying rent instead of living with family. There is also daycare expenses instead of having relatives watch children.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

Jessica, I just can't get onboard with how you feel. If people aren't moving because they 'hate' the idea of living somewhere else, they should know that the work force probably exponentially hates supporting their pitiful attitudes and supporting them is for the birds. Talk about feeling entitled.

ethanwinfield, I can certainly understand the complications. So while a person is at home not paying rent, why doesn't that person get out and get some more education, preferably in a field of shortages?? Is sitting at home doing nothing the answer? No. I completely without a doubt think it's possible to get out of difficult situations, even in today's economy.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"wlillie" wrote:

So are you saying you think people should ask other people to fund their lives instead of having to move? And you think it's the States' responsibility to supply their residents with jobs? And that taxpayers should help those who don't have jobs with moving expenses if they can't find a job in their hometown?

1. I didn't say that. I said it was ridiculous to force people to move elsewhere for jobs. These people can't afford to feed themselves but they can all of sudden afford to move out of state?

2. I do think a state has the responsibility if they want to maintain population and economic growth to have employment options. No jobs=no people=no state.

3. So food stamps cost so much they should move for a job. But don't expect money for the move? Again, doesn't make sense to me. If we go to the point of requiring people to leave for education or career purposes we might as well pay for them to get to this job.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

"myyams" wrote:

Jessica, I just can't get onboard with how you feel. If people aren't moving because they 'hate' the idea of living somewhere else, they should know that the work force probably exponentially hates supporting their pitiful attitudes and supporting them is for the birds. Talk about feeling entitled.

ethanwinfield, I can certainly understand the complications. So while a person is at home not paying rent, why doesn't that person get out and get some more education, preferably in a field of shortages?? Is sitting at home doing nothing the answer? No. I completely without a doubt think it's possible to get out of difficult situations, even in today's economy.

I said I hate the idea of moving. I think people should be looking for work but shouldn't be expected to leave where they are unless they desire to do so. Provide education. Provide career guidance and help with job search. Offer out of state jobs that's great. I cannot get on board with the thinking that people MUST consider uprooting their lives while trying to obtain a job. That's just insane to me. I AM in the work force currently and I don't feel that this is a pitiful attitude nor do I feel that they are entitled. Entitled to me are those that are well off enough to make life changing decisions for others.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Jessica80" wrote:

1. I didn't say that. I said it was ridiculous to force people to move elsewhere for jobs. These people can't afford to feed themselves but they can all of sudden afford to move out of state?

2. I do think a state has the responsibility if they want to maintain population and economic growth to have employment options. No jobs=no people=no state.

3. So food stamps cost so much they should move for a job. But don't expect money for the move? Again, doesn't make sense to me. If we go to the point of requiring people to leave for education or career purposes we might as well pay for them to get to this job.

You kind of just made up your own story of forcing people to move. Here's what I wrote:

I have to revise my stance a little. An able person should work, be actively (with proof) looking for a job, or be a student. There are jobs out there. There are ways to improve one's skills to get a job. It may not be in one's ideal field or it might be in a different field than used to or educated in. One might even have to move I understand if people come into hard times. But people need to buckle down and take a hard look at how they live while times are good and know that things can surely change. I realize people can come from backgrounds which create greater challenges, but I can tell you from my own experiences (from myself and from thousands of others when I worked) that people need to get out of the pity party and be tougher. People have opportunities here ----STILL.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

I said that was how I originally read it but it spun off from there. Your reply still feels like you expect people to move if they can't find a job. So either they move for a job or if they have family somewhere else they are expected to move there and live with them? I find many of your responses to be "well I did it and you must too". That's not always the case.

As I said before I would expect that if you are receiving food stamps and not currently employed that you should be looking for a job or going back to school.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Jessica80" wrote:

I said I hate the idea of moving. I think people should be looking for work but shouldn't be expected to leave where they are unless they desire to do so. Provide education. Provide career guidance and help with job search. Offer out of state jobs that's great. I cannot get on board with the thinking that people MUST consider uprooting their lives while trying to obtain a job. That's just insane to me. I AM in the work force currently and I don't feel that this is a pitiful attitude nor do I feel that they are entitled. Entitled to me are those that are well off enough to make life changing decisions for others.

I remember when I was a teen seeing starving people in Africa (on tv). I'd watch their stories of how they had to walk a few miles to get water. I used to wonder, WHY on earth don't they move a little closer to the water? They know the water isn't moving closer to them. It's not going to suddenly rain down and form the Great Lakes. Why don't they pick up their tents and move a mile or two closer? They'd show their village, a lot of tents really. And don't get me wrong, my heart is completely broken at how hard their lives are and how easy ours is. I often feel like the most worthless person in the world for taking everything for granted. But the point is that if there is no water where you live, move where there is some. I find that very reasonable. But I never ever said or implied that the State should force people to. But in my revised stance, I did revise it to include education. So, if a person can't find work, they should get some more education etc.

I just can't believe that you think OMG WOE is me, I have to move to find a job. I'm really completely lost for words.

Entitled are the people who think they deserve something merely for virtue of their great selves.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Please say you are kidding about the water?

They have seasonal flooding, the area around the water may not be suitable to live., sewage from the new population can pollute the water, lack of food and building materials near water to name a few.

And yeah, I wouldn't move out of state to find a job. Sorry. Kids or no kids. I'm not entitled and I would continue to look for work and would move towns if I had to but I'm certainly not packing up and leaving to move to Kentucky. (no offense to those in Kentucky..it was just at the tip of my tongue)

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Jessica80" wrote:

I said that was how I originally read it but it spun off from there. Your reply still feels like you expect people to move if they can't find a job. So either they move for a job or if they have family somewhere else they are expected to move there and live with them? I find many of your responses to be "well I did it and you must too". That's not always the case.

As I said before I would expect that if you are receiving food stamps and not currently employed that you should be looking for a job or going back to school.

Not just me. I worked in Social Work so my whole days basically was hooking people up with resources, helping them get their lives together. I'd also see the ones who just really weren't interested in getting their lives together. I've seen some really amazing changes from people who you'd least expect it. The despite their odds people. I can't get onboard with people sitting at home, not working, not looking, and not going to school. They have to do 'something' to make it happen.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

Um, I agree with the fact they should be looking or working or going to school. I don't appreciate anyone who bums through life or slacks in responsibility either. I also don't expect people to always know these things which is where the guidance comes into play.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Jessica80" wrote:

Please say you are kidding about the water?

They have seasonal flooding, the area around the water may not be suitable to live., sewage from the new population can pollute the water, lack of food and building materials near water to name a few.

And yeah, I wouldn't move out of state to find a job. Sorry. Kids or no kids. I'm not entitled and I would continue to look for work and would move towns if I had to but I'm certainly not packing up and leaving to move to Kentucky. (no offense to those in Kentucky..it was just at the tip of my tongue)

I was a teen and it was just an observation...and yes an analogy relevant to this topic. I didn't know much about the environment there when I was a teen. But I do know about our lives in the U.S. I am floored by your not willing to move, kids or no kids. A big slap in the face to hardworking people struggling to do what they have to do to survive instead of take advantage of the system. People honestly trying to do their part. People who take dangerous jobs just to survive instead of filing for the taxpayers to support them. This attitude is gross and definitely is an entitled attitude.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"myyams" wrote:

I was a teen and it was just an observation...and yes an analogy relevant to this topic. I didn't know much about the environment there when I was a teen. But I do know about our lives in the U.S. I am floored by your not willing to move, kids or no kids. A big slap in the face to hardworking people struggling to do what they have to do to survive instead of take advantage of the system. People honestly trying to do their part. People who take dangerous jobs just to survive instead of filing for the taxpayers to support them. This attitude is gross and definitely is an entitled attitude.

So where are these jobs I should move for and why aren't the locals getting them?

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

I've read articles from Manpower about jobs they can't fill in the fields of IT, Accounting, Engineering, some special skilled areas, and some others. I've read there is a giant teacher shortage. I've read there is a giant nursing shortage and loan repayment for nursing and teaching can be pretty good (REF), particularly if you serve in under served area in nursing (REF). Lots of hospitals help people who are interested in becoming a nurse with their tuition and repayment.

There are factories trying to hire American workers but Americans aren't enrolling into vocational classes to learn how to do these jobs - because it's not glamorous work. ( REF)

Manpower:
ManpowerGroup Survey Shows 52% of U.S. Employers Can't Find the Right Talent | Manpower U.S. Pressroom

Milwaukee (May 19, 2011) – ManpowerGroup today releases the results of its sixth-annual Talent Shortage Survey, revealing that 52 percent of U.S. employers are experiencing difficulty filling mission-critical positions within their organizations, up from 14 percent in 2010. The number of employers struggling to fill positions is at an all-time survey high despite an unemployment rate that has diminished only marginally during the last year. U.S. employers are struggling to find available talent more than their global counterparts, one in three of whom are having difficulty filling positions.

In the United States, the top 10 hardest jobs to fill include:

1. Skilled Trades
2. Sales Representatives
3. Engineers
4. Drivers
5. Accounting & Finance Staff
6. IT Staff
7. Management/Executives
8. Teachers
9. Secretaries/Administrative Assistants
10. Machinist/Machine Operator

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

1. Skilled Trades
~I personally stink at most skilled trades
2. Sales Representatives
~Many of these are commission based which many people do not want. No secure paycheck
3. Engineers
~This is just something you are born for.
4. Drivers
~I can barely drive my mini van
5. Accounting & Finance Staff
~I'm awful at math
6. IT Staff
~No matter the amount of training I could NOT do this.
7. Management/Executives
~Again, you are born to be a manager or executive. You can go to school to hone skills but you are either a leader or not.
8. Teachers
~I don't want any Joe Schmoe teaching my kids. Teaching should not be a fall back career.
9. Secretaries/Administrative Assistants
~I do have experience in this. Does not pay enough for me to leave.
10. Machinist/Machine Operator
~Yep something else I could not do well

I know that those are only examples but I'm sure I'm not in the minority. These may be hard to fill positions because they either require a talent in a particular skill, a particular mind set or many years of school (not community college/certification programs that SNAP programs offer)

And no, I would also not take a dangerous job. Ever.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

"Jessica80" wrote:

1. Skilled Trades
~I personally stink at most skilled trades
2. Sales Representatives
~Many of these are commission based which many people do not want. No secure paycheck
3. Engineers
~This is just something you are born for.
4. Drivers
~I can barely drive my mini van
5. Accounting & Finance Staff
~I'm awful at math
6. IT Staff
~No matter the amount of training I could NOT do this.
7. Management/Executives
~Again, you are born to be a manager or executive. You can go to school to hone skills but you are either a leader or not.
8. Teachers
~I don't want any Joe Schmoe teaching my kids. Teaching should not be a fall back career.
9. Secretaries/Administrative Assistants
~I do have experience in this. Does not pay enough for me to leave.
10. Machinist/Machine Operator
~Yep something else I could not do well

I know that those are only examples but I'm sure I'm not in the minority. These may be hard to fill positions because they either require a talent in a particular skill, a particular mind set or many years of school (not community college/certification programs that SNAP programs offer)

And no, I would also not take a dangerous job. Ever.

This thought process is JUST as much to blame for our economy as the fiscal policies of our leaders. We need to stop feeding people like that and let them choose between doing the right thing and what they want.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"Jessica80" wrote:

1. Skilled Trades
~I personally stink at most skilled trades
2. Sales Representatives
~Many of these are commission based which many people do not want. No secure paycheck
3. Engineers
~This is just something you are born for.
4. Drivers
~I can barely drive my mini van
5. Accounting & Finance Staff
~I'm awful at math
6. IT Staff
~No matter the amount of training I could NOT do this.
7. Management/Executives
~Again, you are born to be a manager or executive. You can go to school to hone skills but you are either a leader or not.
8. Teachers
~I don't want any Joe Schmoe teaching my kids. Teaching should not be a fall back career.
9. Secretaries/Administrative Assistants
~I do have experience in this. Does not pay enough for me to leave.
10. Machinist/Machine Operator
~Yep something else I could not do well

I know that those are only examples but I'm sure I'm not in the minority. These may be hard to fill positions because they either require a talent in a particular skill, a particular mind set or many years of school (not community college/certification programs that SNAP programs offer)

And no, I would also not take a dangerous job. Ever.

Why is this about you? I can't go on with you. When a person needs something and is driven to be self sufficient, they do things like become a secretary, a teacher, a manager, a machinist, a nurse, a whatever etc. When people have this I can't do anything, woe is me, then they suffer. We don't always get what we want - but we still have to do what we need to do.

You're not personally in need right now I take it. So all of this is irrelevant to your personal life. I guarantee you as feminine as I am, I would consider a whole lot of things outside of my comfort zone to take care of my family.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

"Jessica80" wrote:

1. Skilled Trades
~I personally stink at most skilled trades
2. Sales Representatives
~Many of these are commission based which many people do not want. No secure paycheck
3. Engineers
~This is just something you are born for.
4. Drivers
~I can barely drive my mini van
5. Accounting & Finance Staff
~I'm awful at math
6. IT Staff
~No matter the amount of training I could NOT do this.
7. Management/Executives
~Again, you are born to be a manager or executive. You can go to school to hone skills but you are either a leader or not.
8. Teachers
~I don't want any Joe Schmoe teaching my kids. Teaching should not be a fall back career.
9. Secretaries/Administrative Assistants
~I do have experience in this. Does not pay enough for me to leave.
10. Machinist/Machine Operator
~Yep something else I could not do well

I know that those are only examples but I'm sure I'm not in the minority. These may be hard to fill positions because they either require a talent in a particular skill, a particular mind set or many years of school (not community college/certification programs that SNAP programs offer)

And no, I would also not take a dangerous job. Ever.

If someone was on assistance and had excuses for every single possibility put out there like you have just done then they are choosing not to work. I think one of the reasons this country has people that take advantage of the system was just demonstrated beautifully by your post. If you are in such dire need that you need assistance then you should be at a place where you would take any job, as long as it didnt go against your moral code (like I would never work in the sex industry)

Alissa_Sal's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Personally, I might move for a job, but it wouldn't be a simple decision. DH has a job and a teaching license here; would he have a job in the new city? Me getting a job elsewhere but him not being able to get a job in the new place would be...unhelpful. How much would I be paying for childcare since I am now away from my family who helps take care of T for free? I would need probably need to sell my house before I could move, otherwise I would either be paying double mortgage or at least mortgage plus rent somewhere. And what is the housing market like in the new place? Would I be paying 4x as much to live there, but not making 4x as much money?

My point is, "just move" isn't necessarily the financially smart move in the long run. I think there is this expectation in some people's minds that people should do literally ANYTHING rather than being on assistance, even if that anything is actually a dumb move that results in them being worse off than they were before. It's the same thing I was trying to argue about having an iPhone while on temporarily unemployed and how it might actually cost more to break your contract and get a bare bones phone of some sort to use during your job hunt. I think it's just this knee jerk reaction that people have to anyone on assistance; like they shouldn't bother thinking practically and actually look at the numbers and figure out the smartest decision in the long run, they should just do literally anything it takes to get off assistance right this second. Sounds like a good recipe for more financial troubles and ending up back on assistance to me.

Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2256

What Alissa said. I wasn't making it about me. I was using me as an example of why none of that would work for me.

If people are settling for jobs they should be able to find a job close to them to "settle" on. I have settled for a job before. Then I found the one I'm at now and made the switch. Ideally, that's what all people could and can do.

wlillie's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 8 months ago
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

Weighing pros and cons of moving aside, you found an excuse to not work one of ten jobs that are available in our economy. The problem with that is that you aren't the only one. Many people are choosing to not work because they can't find a job they want, not because they can't find a decent job. And just as many are choosing to not move not because it wouldn't be beneficial for them or their family, but becasue they don't want to.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"myyams" wrote:

I don't work. But I am also not asking for food stamps. I have worked - a whole lot!, and I have put myself through school without assistance. It was crazy hard, but when life is hard, you find a way. My stance isn't harsh. I think people should do what they need to do to take care of themselves. Jessica, sometimes hard decisions have to be made for a while until life improves. People have to do what they have to do to take care of their family. It's not ideal to move away from your family or friends. People move all of the time to go to school or to find work. I don't think it's unreasonable. So yes I think people need to work, be looking for work, or be a student - virtually anything except sitting at home collecting tax payer money doing nothing. People need to make genuine effort.

eta: I think it's a giant slap in the face of the hardworking people out there who struggle and do the right thing with people collecting all sorts of free everythings. I am not saying everyone is doing this but there are lots who are. The hardworking people out there deserve help, not free loaders who aren't making efforts.

What would your career be if you did work outside the home?

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

Myyams, I find your entire argument funny considering you do NOT work and rely on your spouse to provide for you and your children. So let's say something happened to him... You and your (I think you have 3 or 4 children?) can just pick up and move so you can find work, right? Let's pretend that life insurance from your husband wasn't left for you, either (assuming people on food stamps don't have life insurance that was left for them).

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

Hmm. I was a social worker before. I don't know that I'd work in the same capacity as before though. I am not interested in that -eta if I have a choice and right now I do. I am confused though by what you're looking for. I think it depends on the reason why I had to go back to work.

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"mommytoMR.FACE" wrote:

Myyams, I find your entire argument funny considering you do NOT work and rely on your spouse to provide for you and your children. So let's say something happened to him... You and your (I think you have 3 or 4 children?) can just pick up and move so you can find work, right? Let's pretend that life insurance from your husband wasn't left for you, either (assuming people on food stamps don't have life insurance that was left for them).

Are you serious? If I don't work today, it doesn't mean that I've not worked before. My not working today is a lousy attempt to make a point. My not working doesn't disqualify what I am saying. I will do what I have to do if my situation changes.

I am not unsympathetic to struggling people who are trying to better themselves and do the work. I am completely unsympathetic to those expecting a handout and not making the effort.

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"myyams" wrote:

Are you serious? If I don't work today, it doesn't mean that I've not worked before. My not working today is a lousy attempt to make a point. My not working doesn't disqualify what I am saying. I will do what I have to do if my situation changes.

I am not unsympathetic to struggling people who are trying to better themselves and do the work. I am completely unsympathetic to those expecting a handout and not making the effort.

I think it is valid in that you are not actively looking for work. If you were, would you be able to get a job right away? My career choice is on you list but our district hired few teachers this year. One subbed forever and wasn't hired until right before school started. So while there may be a "shortage" it still isn't that easy to get a job.

mom3girls's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/09/07
Posts: 1537

I really hate when people use the "well you are not working, so you dont know what you are talking about" line. Some people choose not to work because they want to stay home and raise children and their spouse makes enough for them to be able to do that. I doubt that you are not understanding she has choosen (with her spouse) to stay home.

I used to stay home, Dh changed careers so I am not able to do that anymore without us using some assistance. So I got a job. I do not really want to work, I would rather be home taking care of my kids. Based on that should I just stay home and get assistance?

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

I think it is valid in that you are not actively looking for work. If you were, would you be able to get a job right away? My career choice is on you list but our district hired few teachers this year. One subbed forever and wasn't hired until right before school started. So while there may be a "shortage" it still isn't that easy to get a job.

My argument is valid whether I am looking or not. My personal decisions have nothing to do with how I feel about foodstamps and to whom IMHO they should be given. Surely we have prepared ourselves for if something does happen to my husband. Like I said, when times are easier, people need to focus and not get lost in that ease. They have to think carefully before making decisions. We didn't wake up and say hey, let's have 5 kids that I can't support should you die. I have options because we've prepared for them. This debate however isn't about how I've prepared or what would I do if suddenly I don't have a husband. We would be fine and I definitely don't need my plate to be silver or gold before I eat out of it.

I am not saying anything is easy or without challenges.

I have stated many times that one might need to enroll in further education, do something to increase and expand skill sets to increase the value an employer has on someone, change fields, etc. If a particular district isn't hiring and a person is determined to only be a teacher, I'd say that person may need to move in order to be a teacher. Economies vary. CA and FL for example went through quite a hit so their job outlook may not be as strong as some others.

Surely sitting stagnant in poverty looking for government support isn't the answer - and that is the crux of this debate. That seems like one of the most depressing states to be in. Get up and do something about it. I mean, how else will anyone's situation improve?

Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

"myyams" wrote:

My argument is valid whether I am looking or not. My personal decisions have nothing to do with how I feel about foodstamps and to whom IMHO they should be given. Surely we have prepared ourselves for if something does happen to my husband. Like I said, when times are easier, people need to focus and not get lost in that ease. They have to think carefully before making decisions. We didn't wake up and say hey, let's have 5 kids that I can't support should you die. I have options because we've prepared for them. This debate however isn't about how I've prepared or what would I do if suddenly I don't have a husband. We would be fine and I definitely don't need my plate to be silver or gold before I eat out of it.

I am not saying anything is easy or without challenges.

I have stated many times that one might need to enroll in further education, do something to increase and expand skill sets to increase the value an employer has on someone, change fields, etc. If a particular district isn't hiring and a person is determined to only be a teacher, I'd say that person may need to move in order to be a teacher. Economies vary. CA and FL for example went through quite a hit so their job outlook may not be as strong as some others.

So if they are at the point where they need food stamps, how do you propose they pay for this?

Surely sitting stagnant in poverty looking for government support isn't the answer - and that is the crux of this debate. That seems like one of the most depressing states to be in. Get up and do something about it. I mean, how else will anyone's situation improve?

Offline
Last seen: 9 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 05/23/12
Posts: 692

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

So if they are at the point where they need food stamps, how do you propose they pay for this?

It would just depend on the person's job and what they are trying to do. People who don't have at least a BA degree have a whole world wide open to them for free education. People have to be resourceful and research opportunities - and if they don't have a computer they can go to the unemployment office for lots of offerings and to the library for free computer use. I stated in the beginning my sister is getting her education paid for, getting a stipend plus gas and her food stamps. She got a job delivering pizzas to support herself and her family and goes to school. The DCF office gave her a list of opportunities that are in severe need. Some were vocational and some needed a degree. She was welcome to choose from among any of them to further her education so she could get off of foodstamps. I really can't go through every scenario possible.

I've answered the debate, and I think my answer is sufficient for this topic.

Pages