Michigan will require people to work for their food stamps starting Oct. 1st

Not a fan of these types of policies, because it costs the govt even more to administer, enforce.

Govt salary, benefits, and pension, plus more unionized staff (at least here) to track stupid stuff like this.
 
Folks with your Protestant American work ethic are the reason the top 1 percent own more collective wealth than the bottom 90 percent. I commend you for your intense commitment to the undermining of your own self-interest.
He's a sucker working hard to provide himself a better future.
 
I actually saw this story on Facebook. The gal that posted it was a classmate of mine and has always been morbidly obese. I can't stand her, but I'm not really the type to block, or delete anybody. Plus I'm not on Facebook a whole hell of a lot, so it's not really that big of a deal

She's the kind that will post cringy fat people's rights videos and tends to look for hand outs via social media. She even had a go fund me page for her cat one time.

Anyway I thought I would share the post she made that caused me to make this thread, because it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. She claims that only having people with no dependents forced to put in the 20 hours is discrimination against childless people.

a44bdd02-ffb3-4845-9c3f-728fbcf4de7d.png
 
What are food stamps going to do about those things?


What are you arguing for here exactly? This thread is about able bodied people working if they want to continue to get government assistance.


I would say the whole welfare system is interconnected. My biggest concern is that you end up hurting people that have been working but have entered a low point in their life. Having work requirements set in place when the economy is good, without considering how it will effect people when the economy is bad, is not good policy. I already admitted I don't know how Michigan's unemployment worked, but explained how Missouri's does to show the weakness of rules that effect welfare.


If a person qualifies for unemployment, I assume they qualify for food stamps. If you have rules that state a person has to work to get food stamps, while also having strict rules that effects how you look for a job, it could have negative effects on a person's job search, to find a job that pays comparable to the one they had (this applies mostly for unskilled workers).

With time limits for drawing unemployment, most people will try and find a job before their unemployment ends. If the law has an exemption for people on unemployment then this is not an issue.

So basically I just have concerns about when the economy is having slow periods, and how it effects people on unemployment.
 
give a man a fish and he'll refrigerate it but teach him how to fish and he'll take your best fishing spots
 
I actually saw this story on Facebook. The gal that posted it was a classmate of mine and has always been morbidly obese. I can't stand her, but I'm not really the type to block, or delete anybody. Plus I'm not on Facebook a whole hell of a lot, so it's not really that big of a deal

She's the kind that will post cringy fat people's rights videos and tends to look for hand outs via social media. She even had a go fund me page for her cat one time.

Anyway I thought I would share the post she made that caused me to make this thread, because it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. She claims that only having people with no dependents forced to put in the 20 hours is discrimination against childless people.

a44bdd02-ffb3-4845-9c3f-728fbcf4de7d.png
She does have a point if you're thinking about some single mothers who intentionally have sex to get pregnant when they aren't married to the guy and he's not gonna provide for the kid. It's been documented that single mothers will try to have more kids to milk the entitlement system.

But, she should realize that she should feel fortunate that as a woman with no kids, under this system of welfare, she has the chance to work in order to eat. Welfare programs are not a right.
 
I would say the whole welfare system is interconnected. My biggest concern is that you end up hurting people that have been working but have entered a low point in their life. Having work requirements set in place when the economy is good, without considering how it will effect people when the economy is bad, is not good policy. I already admitted I don't know how Michigan's unemployment worked, but explained how Missouri's does to show the weakness of rules that effect welfare.


If a person qualifies for unemployment, I assume they qualify for food stamps. If you have rules that state a person has to work to get food stamps, while also having strict rules that effects how you look for a job, it could have negative effects on a person's job search, to find a job that pays comparable to the one they had (this applies mostly for unskilled workers).

With time limits for drawing unemployment, most people will try and find a job before their unemployment ends. If the law has an exemption for people on unemployment then this is not an issue.

So basically I just have concerns about when the economy is having slow periods, and how it effects people on unemployment.



The example you used that I originally quoted isn’t correlating here tho. Obviously if said person making 23$ an hour is in a position to collect unemployment and that makes more sense than taking the 10$ an hour job, than that’s the best course of action. I wouldn’t disagree there.


But saying going from 23$ an hour to food stamps is better than 23$ an hour to 10$ an hour seems ridiculous to me. Especially when it’s reasonable to think that the 10$ an hour position is just a hold over till the person formerly making 23$ an hour can find something closer to what they used to make. But, making something and being productive is better than making nothing and eating up resources that are better served going to people who can’t even find that 10$ an hour job. That’s kind of my point, and where I take issue with your comments.


The other issue I have here (which is a little more indirect to your post) is personal responsibility. People live right up to, or beyond their means far too often. The person in your scenario losing that 23$ an hour job should have taken steps on their own to budget themselves reasonably and plan for the future be it thru savings, investments, or an emergency such as job loss. It’s one of the issues I have with so many of these hypothetical discussions because so many people have no problems conjuring up these scenarios, while simultaneously bypassing measures that could have reasonably been taken ahead of time to cushion the blow/limited the negative impact these potential situations could have on people should they arise. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to be responsible.
 
The example you used that I originally quoted isn’t correlating here tho. Obviously if said person making 23$ an hour is in a position to collect unemployment and that makes more sense than taking the 10$ an hour job, than that’s the best course of action. I wouldn’t disagree there.


But saying going from 23$ an hour to food stamps is better than 23$ an hour to 10$ an hour seems ridiculous to me. Especially when it’s reasonable to think that the 10$ an hour position is just a hold over till the person formerly making 23$ an hour can find something closer to what they used to make. But, making something and being productive is better than making nothing and eating up resources that are better served going to people who can’t even find that 10$ an hour job. That’s kind of my point, and where I take issue with your comments.


The other issue I have here (which is a little more indirect to your post) is personal responsibility. People live right up to, or beyond their means far too often. The person in your scenario losing that 23$ an hour job should have taken steps on their own to budget themselves reasonably and plan for the future be it thru savings, investments, or an emergency such as job loss. It’s one of the issues I have with so many of these hypothetical discussions because so many people have no problems conjuring up these scenarios, while simultaneously bypassing measures that could have reasonably been taken ahead of time to cushion the blow/limited the negative impact these potential situations could have on people should they arise. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect people to be responsible.


Yea, what I was trying to say is a person shouldnt be forced to take a job less than their benefits or lose all benefits. They should have a chance to find a job more comparable to the one they lost. Being forced to take a lower paying job with half the hours isn't really a great win for society. After all workers pay into unemployment out of their pay checks. If their benefits run out before they find a job then I see no problem with the work requirements kicking in when plenty of jobs are available.
 
These types of ideas work fine in times of plenty. If we hit another recession, this will be a shit show and really harm those in need. Most Americans are less than a month away from being broke, adding extra requirements to get emergency assistance, is not as great as it sounds, imo.

Let's do an example, an unskilled worker is making $23 an hour in a factory. One day they get laid off or fired. Now instead of being able to look for a compatible job, which they may not find, they have to take the first $10. I know all sherdoggers make super bank and are independently wealthy, but most Americans would suffer drastically losing over half of their pay.

Before I get the guys saying they can keep looking and work the other job, I just want you guys to know that it is a lot harder, than it is to type it out on a forum. Just try to understand why we have these programs, I believe it's better to have some scumbags getting a free ride, than it is to deny those in need.


As a Christian I fully support this post because it places love over and above justice-- kind of like Jesus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No problem at all with this, beggars can't be choosers
 
He's a sucker working hard to provide himself a better future.

The problem isn't people "working hard". It's working hard while not only being blind to their own exploitation but attempting to defend and justify it on behalf of their plutocrat masters.
 
That's one way of wording it.

However, I would come to the conclusion that my sacrifice and work ethic is a large part of the reason why my self-interest as you put it,has been expanded enormously over the years with higher levels of success. Do you feel that complaining about working too hard, quitting to do a new job and starting over careers when it gets tough, or taking government assistance would have been a better path for my future self-interest?

The problem isn't that you're doing your best to maximize your share of income in an unjust system. It's that you're doing nothing to decry and change that system but, instead, defending and glorifying it.
 
A good way to stamp out the lazy!

Most-Liquor-Stores-Throughout-U.S.-Now-Accepting-Food-Stamps.jpg
:p

This only works in a few states now...many have converted over to a debit card and it does not work on non-food items or alcohol.

To the OP. They can do it because they have a state run job assistance program like many larger states have. Its the model all states should use. If they can help people get trained to work, keep them on assistance while training to help improve their situation, then take them off. Thats what the social safety net is supposed to be for, to help keep people from losing it all and being on the streets, not used as a crutch forever.
 
so after this goes into effect and removes all of 3 people from welfare, what will the next excuse be?
 
Sweet. But a whole lot of folks on food stamps already have full time jobs.

I might be mistaken, but I dont think this is "new" policy but a return to pre GFC policy. I believe the requirements were laxed during the GFC when there just weren't enough jobs.

I could be wrong, I'm not from Michigan.
Yup. This ain’t news. It will be packaged and sold as #maga, though... like those made in China’s baseball caps.

so after this goes into effect and removes all of 3 people from welfare, what will the next excuse be?
Dude, bro, nah bro, there thousands, I mean millions of thousands of Welfare Queens out there. 95% of the people on welfare are abusing it. Ronald Ray Gun told me so.
 
Last edited:
Michigan saw its lowest unemployment rate in nearly nine years as it dropped to 4.3 percent in July 2018. That means the state can no longer claim a federal work exemption for those receiving food assistance.

If you're between 18 and 49 years old, have no dependents and aren't disabled or otherwise exempt, you will have to be employed if you want to keep your benefits. They will have three months to find a job or lose their benefits. All new applicants will be subjected to work requirements immediately.

What sort of work qualifies?
There are three forms of work that meet the requirements:

I'm on board with this. I have no problem with social service programs for people in need, but this should help for those that want to abuse the system.​

<mma4>

Not really seeing any downside to this. It's still protecting the most vulnerable people.
 
This is a great idea and I hope more states follow this path. There's always community work to be done. Make people work a couple of hours a day at these farms that can't get workers to pick fruit too.
 
Back
Top