It's been a couple of decades since I heard my first ad telling people they were probably eligible for food stamps. There was so much welfare money in the coffers, and people were too proud to think of their kids and take it, and the food stamps, blah blah think of the children blah.

Hell, while I was in high school I realized the power and job security in having people on welfare, just like I realized the power and job security involved in keeping people fat and hating themselves for it.

That was a lot of presidents ago, and regardless of what flavor was in charge, the ads and intent were the same.

"HHS has decided to grant waivers to states that will knock out the keystone of the welfare-reform arch: the work requirement."

Very few people on food stamps are privileged, college educated writers. Many are semi-skilled or low skilled, but hard working people that used to have jobs in: construction, manufacturing, or the general services field until the economy collapsed.

The unemployment rate in my state is 8.6%, and that number doesn’t count either underemployed or discouraged workers. For those without a college education the unemployment rate is even higher. It doesn’t make any sense to deny poor people access to food or basic medical care because there aren’t enough openings available to hire them.

"Many are semi-skilled or low skilled, but hard working people that used to have jobs in: construction, manufacturing, or the general services field until the economy collapsed."

How about a link to support that assertion? Per this, from the Urban Institute, at the time their data was compiled, half of all welfare receipients had been on welfare for at least five years, and half of that half had never in their lives held gainful employment. And this was during the low-unemployment '90s.

If a person stays on welfare for at least two years, the odds are that they will remain on some form of welfare for their entire lives. At some point, one has to ask oneself: Here we have a huge body of people who are expensive to maintain and completely non-value-added to society. What does one do with them?

The unemployment rate in my state is 8.6%, and that number doesn’t count either underemployed or discouraged workers. For those without a college education the unemployment rate is even higher. It doesn’t make any sense to deny poor people access to food or basic medical care because there aren’t enough openings available to hire them. -- Mike Hunter at August 6, 2012 12:45 PM

And how many fast food, and other restaurants have signs up seeking employees. How about your local stores?

Until all those positions are filled you aren't denying poor people access to food, or money. I rode a bus for more than a year, an hour each way, to get to work.

Someone is under-employed? By what definition? So your degree in native American anthropology didn't yield you a job? Did you investigate your career prospects ahead of time? How about your computer science degree -- you still have to know how the network goes together. That means starting at the bottom.

I have no real problem supplementing someone with food stamps if they are working and trying to get ahead, but if you're sitting on your mother's couch and playing with the XBox and complaining you can't find a job, kiss my butt.

"How about a link to support that assertion? Per this, from the Urban Institute, at the time their data was compiled.

That data was compiled in 1996! That was 12 years ago and the unemployment rate was 5% which most economists' think is very close to the natural rate of unemployment! It makes sense to temporarily lift the work requirements when its impossible for a large segment of the population to find work. Making a rule thats impossible for many people to comply with is stupid.

"And how many fast food, and other restaurants have signs up seeking employees. How about your local stores?"

None where I live; and you're an idiot. Obviously you haven't had to look for work in the past two years.

Mike, the work requirement isn't "get a job before you get food stamps" it's "show us you're trying to get a job, or enrolled in a job-training program, to continue getting food stamps".

My SIL showed up at the food stamp office, with no job. They gave her the Lone Star Card and TANF and Medicaid and offered her their class for job-seekers, which was about basics like what to wear to a job interview, what not to do when applying for a job, etc. She went a few months with no job, and had to go back for another appointment at the food stamp office, where they told her that they would now start requiring her to call her case worker every week with a list of places where she'd filled out an application, or no food stamps. She did that for a few weeks, got no job, and had to take the class---this time "take the class or no food stamps" not "do you want to take a class". Then she was back to having her case worker check up on all her applications. If most of the hiring managers said that Beth had been polite, dressed appropriately but they just weren't hiring right now, the caseworker marked Beth as compliant and she got to keep getting food stamps. If she'd been lying to her caseworker about where she applied, she'd get the boot, and if hiring managers said anything like "she came in and applied but she swore and chewed gum" she'd get sent back to take the class.

Work requirements don't apply to people who have disabilities, are over a certain age, caring for a child with disabilities or caring for a spouse with certain disabilities (the list of these disabilities may be a mite to inclusive for my taste, but I dunno) and AGAIN it never applies to people who are showing up for their initial food stamp appointment. The old work requirements were hardly denying poor people food because they can't find work. The new Obama rule will let people basically decide to take a year off, volunteer in the community in some feel-goody fashion that people laugh at middle-class housewives about, and still get their stuff paid for by the government.

Jenny Had A Chance: I have no problem with the system you described. But welfare requirements vary state by state. Your state sounds like it has a decent system. Not all states do. Where I live if you are unable to find a job they send you to a business to work without pay for at least 20 hours a week.

This would make sense if they had you doing skilled labor that would lead to a decent paying job. But caseworkers just want to meet the legal requirements, and most "real" jobs don't want to train unskilled welfare applicants. So they end up requiring applicants to work 20 hours a week for no pay doing unskilled labor. People on welfare rarely even get a minimum wage job this way. Why would the employer hire someone when he get partner with state government to make welfare applicants work for him for free?

When you factor in the cost of daycare which is not provided by the state; after all welfare applicants are overwhelmingly single mothers because that’s what you have to be to qualify for these programs for any reasonable amount of time; many people end up paying more for childcare then they receive in benefits.

Some people may see shrinking the social safety net and disqualifying greater numbers of people from welfare as a laudable goal. But if thats the case they should make that argument to the citizenry and let the voters decide. Instead of doing what they do now; which is to have politicians tack on requirements that are many times impossible to comply with by slipping some obsure wording into an otherwise uncontroversial bill.

Mike, it's my impression that my state (Texas) was pretty solidly in line with the federal requirements that Clinton (and two houses full of Republicans) brought in, and Obama just struck out...but in any event there's no way that Texas is *more* lenient than the federal standard. The states don't get *that* much leeway. But even if I'm wrong, you were talking about people being unable to get food stamps if they didn't already have a job. Is there really any state that interpreted Clinton's work requirement that way?

Also, daycare for low-income people is provided by the state. CCMS is a federal program. The waiting lists are kind of horrible, but then federal work requirements don't apply to single parents who cannot find suitable care (the checks on how hard parents try to find care is similar to the checks on their job search, only the case worker is already armed with a list of providers and their vacancies) and any daycare that parents pay for is counted as an expense that lowers their "official" income (like rent, and transportation costs including car insurance) so that they get more foodstamps for every dollar they spend on daycare.

None where I live; and you're an idiot.

Thank you. That gives me an idea of your emotional quotient to your intelligence quotient.

Obviously you haven't had to look for work in the past two years.

No, I haven't. But I still get about two-three direct calls or emails a month head hunting me. But I have some skills I can offer. My company also hired in several temps over the past three years. The two we wanted to hire were sniped by companies before my boss could extend an offer.

Where do you live? I'm in Ohio -- I have seen help wanted signs up, not in great quantities, but they exist.

I have also sat and talked to many people. They have changed jobs, improved their situations and one former waitress I know is trying to open a bar.

My local Waffle House is practically screaming for decent cooks and servers for third shift. Our local Kroger is accepting applications (and has a help wanted sign on the door).

South Dakota has a 4.3% general unemployment rate and some regions in the 2.3% range. The trucking industry is looking for drivers. They even have automatic transmission 18 wheelers now. That is about a 4-6 week training to have a job.

If you want to stay home and play with your Wii Wii go for it.

If you want to be honest -- apply for any and every job. If you say a job is beneath you, why?

Oh, by the way, I would appreciate knowing why you labeled me an idiot. What specific facts lead you to that conclusion? I try to always educate myself.

Jenny Had A Chance:

I don't know anything about how welfare is administered in Texas or any other state. I just know how it's done here. Also after your income is below a certain threshold lowering it anymore doesn't get you any more money in food stamps.

Jim P:

"Thank you. That gives me an idea of your emotional quotient to your intelligence quotient."

You know all of that just from one post on the internet? Impressive!

South Dakota has a 4.3% general unemployment rate

South Dakota has a 4.3% unemployment rate. Great! The national unemployment rate is 8.2% and the unemployment rate is Florida is 8.6%. Are you willing to help pay for relocation assistance so poor people can move there? You do realize it takes money to pick up and move across the country don't you?

"If you want to stay home and play with your Wii Wii go for it. If you want to be honest -- apply for any and every job. If you say a job is beneath you, why?"

Who said I didn't have a job? I put in a 40 hour work week as an accountant. I just don't think that poor people in the richest country in the world should be denied access to food or basic medical care because there aren't enough jobs to go around.

South Dakota has a 4.3% unemployment rate. Great! The national unemployment rate is 8.2% and the unemployment rate is Florida is 8.6%. Are you willing to help pay for relocation assistance so poor people can move there? You do realize it takes money to pick up and move across the country don't you?

A Greyhound© ticket from Miami to Sioux Falls, SD is about $241. I bet a few days of panhandling could raise that. Probably hitting friends and family for $20 in donations could raise that. For that matter you get about $80 a week selling plasma.

Who said I didn't have a job? I put in a 40 hour work week as an accountant.

Did you sacrifice to go to college? Would you have cut your GPA in half, to make sure friend who never studied and went out to party all the time, to graduate you two as the 340th and 341st in a class of 400?

I just don't think that poor people in the richest country in the world should be denied access to food

There are many food pantries and soup kitchens around the country. Many people donate to them on top of being taxed out the wazoo. Additionally, while not the best in the Eades/Taubes model you can get ramen, spaghetti, and many other family of four meals in for less than $10-15 a day. If you aren't working, you have time to cook from scratch. And if it's Florida, you can have a garden pretty much year round.

or basic medical care

Show me the E.R. that has turned someone away and is being sued for not providing basic medical care?

because there aren't enough jobs to go around

A quick google for "miami, fl help wanted" brought up this site advertising 18599 Jobs in Miami, FL.

You always have to make a choice -- I bet I could make $145K working in NYC, but I'd have a choice of 1.5+ hour drive everyday, or living in the city and my effective take home would be about $45K.

The problem with your approach is that you want equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity.

You know all of that just from one post on the internet? Impressive!

Oh, forgot to address this. No, it is from watching and reading your vaguely to fully leftist posts over time.

And how does that not equate to "and you're an idiot." from a single post?

I did not resort to insults of any sort. I highlighted your post and asked for facts, but even anecdotes would have probably sufficed. You response was insulting and questioning my intelligence.

Again, I would appreciate knowing why you labeled me an idiot. What specific facts lead you to that conclusion? I try to always educate myself.

I don't know anything about how welfare is administered in Texas or any other state. I just know how it's done here. Also after your income is below a certain threshold lowering it anymore doesn't get you any more money in food stamps.

----

Okay, that makes sense...but where's "here" and does "here" or anywhere have the onerous restrictions you were talking about---you must get a job before you get food stamps, and no daycare paid for by the state---or were you just building a straw man? Or just misunderstanding the term "work requirement" and unwilling to admit it and/or google it?

Also, of course once your income is below a certain threshold, you don't get more money in food stamps. At that point you're getting the maximum amount of food stamps. I guess the point was to counter my assertion that a single mom gets more food stamps for every dollar she spends on daycare? Well, you got me---if a single mom doesn't have any income, or so little income that she gets the maximum amount of food stamps, her foodstamps can't go up just yet. But, if her income is that low, it's highly improbable that she's got a kid in daycare. My point is that when she gets a job, her daycare costs won't exceed her the benefits of foodstamps and Medicaid and she will be working toward independence.

But yeah, you said that there are single moms who would pay more in daycare costs than they would see in benefits and I say bullshit, once again. Here's how it works, federally, to make it clear. The state decides on a number (each state picks their own number, and often picks different numbers for rural, suburban and urban areas) that represents what it costs to feed a person per month. We'll call that number X. In order to qualify for food stamps, a household of three people like Beth and her two kids must have less than 3X each month in either total income or adjusted income (AI), income minus qualified expenses. Qualified expenses are rent/mortgage payment, utilities, one phone bill*, the payment and insurance and gas on one car* or the cost of bus passes*, health insurance premium, and, yup, childcare. If a mom has a CCMS voucher her expense is either zero or a small copay, but the copay is a qualified expense. Then, to figure out how much you get in food stamps, you just do 3X-AI, and day care will always lower the AI, thus, daycare expenses are always, except perhaps in the first pay period of employment IF she has not gotten a CCMS voucher, a wash for the single mom on food stamps and Medicaid. Even if she spent literally her entire check on daycare and transportation, she'd make it up in food stamps and Medicaid.

*indicates expenses on which the states have leeway. There is also an assets test, separate from income, which can effect eligibility and the states figure out their own assets tests, ranging from simply 'how much is in your bank account' to sending a social worker to check the value of the house and cars on the property. But the income formula is federally set except for the value of X and some tweaking of qualified expenses.