Indiana to start requiring Food Stamp recipients to work.

[Bennettjh]

Good.

Drug test 'em too.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

If they have money to spend on drugs then I don't think they're really all that much in need of the food stamps we would be taking away from them.

We are taught there will always be poor among us. There are people that, even with their best efforts, cannot afford good, healthy food. The problem always has been how much do we help them? Few would argue that a person, down on his luck, trying to do the right thing, and reluctant to take "a handout" probably is the person we all envision we are helping. But when help has become an entitlement, when it is an integral part of so many peoples' lives, are we really helping them? Aren't we just enabling continued poor decisions and choices? If you're like me, the answer to that last question is yes. Yes, I believe generational welfare and other public handouts is a bane on our society. We are making ourselves weaker with each passing year and each more entitled generation. Only by encouraging able-bodied people to stand up and work for their own living can we end this dismal condition. So when I support various conditions and tests as prerequisites for being able to accept public largess, it's not to starve anybody or to be cruel but to apply the tough love I believe is required to elicit a change for the better.

 

[dshaf]

I saw middle eastern gas station owner in dollar general buying a lot of pop and gallons of milk. He the drove to his mini-mart and stocked his store cooler. All this paid for with an ebt card.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I saw middle eastern gas station owner in dollar general buying a lot of pop and gallons of milk. He the drove to his mini-mart and stocked his store cooler. All this paid for with an ebt card.

Wow. You'd think now that most all these places have computerized inventory systems, it would be relatively easy to have auditing software running to monitor for ebt card usage abuse.

 

[renauldo]

I repaired cash registers for 40 years and just retired in 2010. Most of my time was spent in Chicago in some of the worst neighborhoods on the west and south sides. The food stamp program is now Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. (SNAP) There were never "stamps" in the true sense, but books of coupons kind of like monopoly money in different denominations. The food stamp system was cumbersome. Recipients received credit slips in the mail redeemable at currency exchanges, and then those redeemed coupons could be used for groceries. Initially food stamps could only be used legally for generic and healthy food types. When those policies were followed the precipitants and their kids were better neurached (sp?) than the average person not on stamps. It all changed when food stamp recipients claimed they were discriminated against by not being able to choose the groceries of choice. The "buy/eat what you want" approach to food stamps has produced a generation or two of obese unemployable parents and offspring. I've seen food stamps used to purchase liquor and traded for money, generally 2 for 1. The SNAP program greatly simplified the system with electronic transfer instead of coupons to be used, then counted by grocers, and redeemed by the government. What with WIC, SNAP, and welfare nobody needs to work. Grocers love SNAP, the recipients buy the high mark up items you and I would find it hard to justify. It's all gonna hit the fan pretty soon, there ain't enough money to support them all.

 

[9mmfan]

I'll be the first to admit I received an EBT card years ago as a single father raising a you son. I worked full time but still qualified for it. It truly helped.

I know it is abused a lot and I see it every time I go to the grocery store but some people really need it.

 

[deal me in]

This thread is a perfect example of why we have the government that we do. They have you guys debating work rules and drug testing instead of debating whether money should be stolen from productive people and given to non productive people. The conservative position should be to eliminate govt welfare and transition to a private, voluntary system not growing the role of govt with work requirements and drug testing.

 

[88GT]

This thread is a perfect example of why we have the government that we do. They have you guys debating work rules and drug testing instead of debating whether money should be stolen from productive people and given to non productive people. The conservative position should be to eliminate govt welfare and transition to a private, voluntary system not growing the role of govt with work requirements and drug testing.

Oh, yeah. It's got the wool pulled over our eyes. That's for sure.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Meanwhile more and more jobs are being done by robots. We don't need humans any more so let's just starve them and get rid of them. Writing these people off is not a viable long term solution. When everything is done by robots and no one has a job how will the money be distributed. This is the way it is going because of technology whether we like it or not.

The money will be made by those that design, build, program, and service the robots. As far as I know there are not robots to do those function. While it is true that some robots can do "manual" labor better, more precisely, and with fewer defects, I don't know any robot yet that can design itself, build itself, write the code to program itself, or keep itself operational, let alone design the products that it helps produce.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'll be the first to admit I received an EBT card years ago as a single father raising a you son. I worked full time but still qualified for it. It truly helped.

I know it is abused a lot and I see it every time I go to the grocery store but some people really need it.

Kudos to you. I think just about all of us recognize that not all assistance programs are bad. By the contrary, when used to help those who are already willing, able, and honestly trying to help themselves, it can be a great program and a way for us to help our fellow citizen out. The cliché is probably over used, but many of us are ok with the wealth of this nation used to be a charitable "hand up" to those in need vs. a "hand out" that allow folks to mooch off of everyone else.

 

[Sylvain]

I'll be the first to admit I received an EBT card years ago as a single father raising a you son. I worked full time but still qualified for it. It truly helped.

I know it is abused a lot and I see it every time I go to the grocery store but some people really need it.

With the minimum wage being so low some people who work still need help getting food.

 

[ModernGunner]

Actually, drug testing doesn't 'cost too much', at all. Maybe $10 or less (very likely less than $8) per person. Fail the test, they should be immediately cut, not one more penny. And that would mean cut from all assistance: food stamps, housing, etc. Want to contest the test results? Fine, but that's, then, on their dime.

Don't 'like' that, don't like being constantly monitored, subjected to drug and means testing on a regular basis? Fine, don't get on the dole system. It's not meant (or originally wasn't) for folks to circumvent working and providing for themselves. It was originally intended for those who actually can't fend for themselves due to real medical problems, physical disabilities, and so forth. And no, being a life-long drug user does not qualify.

And the 'work' stipulation should be just as easy. Must be employed, at a 'regular' job that receives a paycheck. Eliminate 'in training' and 'searching' loopholes.

There are, most assuredly, those folks out there that legitimately need a hand up (no 'handouts'). But a good portion of those on the dole are simply scam artists who prefer to be on the dole. Weeding those out, prosecuting them for theft if necessary, provides more $$$ available to those who have a real, legitimate need.

JMO of course. YMMV.

 

[Lucas156]

I'm strongly in favor of limiting snap recipients to healthy foods but I'm not in favor of drug testing. Drugs should be legal any way. Also, when there are no jobs to get in this craptastic economy how can you penalize someone for not having one? And we wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle class gets decimated. The government has divide and conquer down to a science.

 

[rambone]

I'm OK with this. I'm good with the drug testing. I also think if you're on public assistance for more than some given amount of time, you and your home should be subject to random inspections to see how you're using the taxpayers' money and if you really need it. If you don't like people telling you how to spend their money or putting conditions on accepting it, earn your own money.

Yikes. Can we agree to cutting welfare without "random home inspections"? Warrantless searches come with a cost too...

Let's not pretend SNAP recipients are the only tax-consumers that fit the criteria. How about the millions enjoying Medicare and Social Security subsidies? Or the masses enjoying subsidized public schooling, public university, public housing, health care, retirement, social services, or hundreds of other programs. All told, the majority of the country must be enrolled in some sort of public subsidy or public program. Should the 4th Amendment be wiped out as a condition for all of these?

 

[Leo]

I know that there are many who only put on enough effort to scam whatever they can. Bad deal. I also have spent the last several years assisting the poor, esp in relation to families with young children.

Even with food and rent susidies, it is extremely tough to make it. Almost all that I know ARE working on the side to get by. It is usually at some kind of cash trade, like babysitting for a single parent who does have a liveable income, cleaning houses, working in arts and crafts, garage sales, etc. They are so close to not making ends, they are afraid of loosing the food subsidy if they have reportable income. I would like to say that is usual, it is not. But there are people who are down on the skids that are putting out full effort. When the economy has some jobs where they can actually make a living, they gladly leave this level and become self sufficient.

There are also those who have completely given up. There best effort could not stay even. They slip into becoming total wards of the state. Others, usually related to people who never try at all, just lay down and become totally dependent on the taxpayers. One a person is in this hole, they tend to stay.

THe trick for leadership is to develop a plan to deal with the self imposed wards of the state without crushing those who are trying but have no opportunity to do better.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Good point, Leo (and 9mmfan above). In another facet of my life , I am a volunteer leader of a church congregation. I am responsible for working with those in need.

a) there are those who abuse the system
b) there are those who are in absolute need of the system.
c) the current system actually forces people NOT to work in some cases due to them losing benefits if they take a job. In other words, there is a perverse incentive NOT to work that traps the recipient in some cases.

In all cases, our charitable work is to try to lift folks out of b) in spite of c). And avoid the a) crowd. Our system works fairly well at that.. Not perfect for sure, but fairly well.

Lastly, the views of many of you, that are expressed above are similar to many in my congregation. They tend to be on the heavy handed side. I am constrained not to discuss matters (like who needs what and why and etc) with them for obvious confidentiality reasons. I believe if they were to walk with me and see what I see it would be an eye opening and heart rending experience for them.

I also agree with Rambone - while requirinf drug testing SOUNDS like a great idea - there are some pretty big devils in the details. I think that some are overlooking those devils due to their anger at the "abusing the system" crowd.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I'm strongly in favor of limiting snap recipients to healthy foods but I'm not in favor of drug testing. Drugs should be legal any way. Also, when there are no jobs to get in this craptastic economy how can you penalize someone for not having one? And we wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle class gets decimated. The government has divide and conquer down to a science.

The issue here isn't about whether or not drugs should be legalized. That is an entirely different can of wax.

The issue is that just about all of us that are working for a living are held to some pretty strict standards when it comes to drug, and yes, even alcohol abuse. Most of us had to take some sort of drug test as part of a pre-employment physical. For many of us, a condition of our continued employment and as a requirement for health insurance, would have to actively seek rehabilitation if we were found to have a substance abuse problem, and if the problem could not be corrected after a certain period of time, would find ourselves unemployed. Hence, why so many of us feel so strongly, if those of us that are working, and therefore by proxy supporting those that aren't working, are expected to be drug free, then those we are supporting should be drug free as well. Add to that the fact that typically drugs are very expensive, it adds to the frustration that someone on public assistance can some how afford to be using illegal drugs but yet cannot afford food for their family.

 

[jd4320t]

I'm strongly in favor of limiting snap recipients to healthy foods but I'm not in favor of drug testing. Drugs should be legal any way. Also, when there are no jobs to get in this craptastic economy how can you penalize someone for not having one? And we wonder why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle class gets decimated. The government has divide and conquer down to a science.

Please explain to me how there aren't any jobs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I know right? People that use public roads and bridges, use utilities that use public rights of ways, use the internet whose ISP utilizes public air waves or public rights of way, run their boats on Lake Monroe, enjoy public parks, are protected by police and fire departments should be subject to them too.

When able-bodied people sign up for public assistance, that bar is considered by many to be considerably different than your son/daughter going to IU or grandma getting her survivor's benefit check. And who said anything about them having to be warrantless? If you sign up for the public welfare, it is a choice. A part of that choice matrix could include you knowingly acknowledge and permit the searches. Don't want to surrender yourself to the searches? Earn your own money. Or seek out private charity.

I'm all for cutting all non-constitutionally mandated or permitted programs but it ain't going to happen. None of this will likely happen either. Instead, we'll just continue on, business as usual, from those who will, to those that won't.

And baby-boomers like me that are careening towards SS and medciare sign-up dates, get ready...we vote and you guys had better be ready to pull the wagon...with fewer horses.

Yikes. Can we agree to cutting welfare without "random home inspections"? Warrantless searches come with a cost too...

Let's not pretend SNAP recipients are the only tax-consumers that fit the criteria. How about the millions enjoying Medicare and Social Security subsidies? Or the masses enjoying subsidized public schooling, public university, public housing, health care, retirement, social services, or hundreds of other programs. All told, the majority of the country must be enrolled in some sort of public subsidy or public program. Should the 4th Amendment be wiped out as a condition for all of these?

 

[JS1911]

I certainly can't pretend to have all of the answers to this complex issue, but I do look forward to hearing that stupid peanut-head moron Erica B Smith whining about this in the Star. My take is, money should be going to those who TRULY need it, and none at all to scammers and junkies. Now, going about accomplishing this is next to impossible, but that doesn't mean that this idea isn't a good start, loopholes and all. Rome wasn't built in a day, and it will take several long decades to bring about entitlement reform, if it ever happens at all.