You do what you can.

I was surprised (stupid I know) that able bodied persons got 'free' stuff anymore. Thought Mr. "I did not have sex" took care of that but ...

That's hilarious. They wouldn't even work six lousy hours of community service? That's not even a full day's work. It's less than half a day's work for a lot of people.

I'll amplify Patrick's comment with if you're not willing to work 6 hours per week for your food, you're not hungry.

Fat, lazy? maybe and yes. Hungry? no.

Mr. Greenslate is getting $200 per month in SNAP (SUPPLEMENTAL Nutritional Assistance Program), but can afford to use this to buy lobster? I suspect Mr. Greenslate has an off book source of income, and is probably committing SNAP fraud.

In Oregon this is known as helping Mr. Greenslate to become self sufficient.

Alternatively Bill, Mr Greenslate has highly irregular income (large lump sum checks every year or two). So he both qualifies for SNAP and doesn't need it. You are talking about ~10k people in a state of 1.3M. Under 1%. It wouldn't be surprising that most of them have highly unusual jobs with erratic income. On the plus side, this means having a kid is not a significant incentive. And seriously, if you aren't willing to do 6 hrs of community service a week you probably aren't willing to have a kid. They take a lot more than 6 hrs per week.

So some people have no sense of shame - that's not news.

On a related note; there is a food bank a few towns over from me that just opened its doors last year (they haven't even been open for a year yet).

What makes this non-governmental, non-profit unique (at least to me it sounds unique) is that it requires every family getting food to work there for a couple hours each week, whether it be stocking selves, breaking down empty boxes, sweeping up, or whatever needs to be done.

The husband/wife team that opened this organization says that most of the beneficiaries come in once a week to do their hours of work at the same time they come it to pick up their food.

Since they are not government and don't get government money they can pretty much run their organization any way they want (there are exceptions, of course; especially in such a blue state as ours).

I do think this is a great way to run this food bank - no free food; and the hours required to work aren't a heavy burden. But, I'll wait to see if they can stay open without the government closing them down due to some bureaucratic nonsense!

"Thought Mr. "I did not have sex" took care of that but ..."

If you mean Bill Clinton, yes, and welfare reform was one of the highlights of his term. But Obama has undone all of the Clinton-era reforms. Some by legislation and some by, as the article notes, executive fiat.

...he spends his time surfing and playing in his rock band, all the while receiving benefits from the food stamp program.

Isn't that what Pelosi et al wanted?

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance." ~ Nancy Pelosi

==============================

...Maine's governor, Paul LePage, recently established work requirements on recipients who are without dependents and able-bodied. In Maine, all able-bodied adults without dependents in the food stamp program are now required to take a job, participate in training, or perform community service.

How much you wanna bet the birthrate in Maine is about to go up?

So, it was off to the gourmet section of the grocery store, as Greenslate purchased sushi and lobster with his EBT card. “All paid for by our wonderful tax dollars,” he said, telling Roberts that’s what he typically buys.

Our? wonderful tax dollars? Uh, no.

We need to stop the thinking that taxes are "the government's" money and make people realize taxes are the taxpayers' money, taken by coercion to be used for socially-beneficial (or necessary) expenses - like emergency services, police, roads, etc. Not to be used so grunting ignoramuses ("I don't got a paycheck...") can eat lobster and surf while we work. You wanna live "the rat life," you can eat out of garbage cans like real rats.

Teen girls (and older) are currently paid to have babies. They receive food cards, housing, medical care, babysitting, and independence from their parents.

I support funding orphanages and encouraging adoption, where the unfortunate children of teen mothers will find a better life. Further, make the teens pay a portion of the support for their children over the next 20 years.

Those unfortunate children will have better opportunities, and teens will quickly learn to stop having children as a way to early independence. Bill them, don't pay them. They can complete some training and work for their living without a child to care for, and pay towards their child.

Orphanages are better than being raised by a teen mother. You would have to believe that the caring actions of the state are generally worse than letting teens raise children. Is that possible? Is state care worse than being raised by a teen on welfare? Or worse, being raised by a mid-twenty with a few children on welfare?

Properly run orphanages will be more expensive at first, and some of that expense will be offset by the contributions of the now working mothers. Orphanages can concentrate schooling, healthcare, and other support. Mothers could visit their children and take them on outings.

Orphanages will be less expensive and much more humane overall and over time. The incentive to create these children will change, and such births will greatly decline with declining overall costs. Meanwhile, we would stop the flow of mistreated, ignored, and unsocialised children who grow up to be aimless at best and violent at worst.

I've been advocating for Andrew's suggestion for years, but any time I say something I either get the "how dare you separate a mother and her child" or "the government would be worse".

I think both of those statements are bullshit.

"Is state care worse than being raised by a teen on welfare? "

I'd say that orphanages, the foster system, and being raised by a teen mother are all tied for worst. The advantage of an orphanage is that its operations are out in front of the public for everyone to see, and thus it's easier to keep it accountable.

Yeah, along with what Andrew said.. the whole "if you have a dependent, you get a free pass" thing is crap. There should be proof required that the dependent is so needy that the person can't work. Plenty of us were raised by working parents, so why those on gov't handouts (which is OUR money) should get a pass is beyond me.

Sure, maybe make the work requirements less than someone without dependents, and even perhaps make them (assuming mostly children) rotate essentially doing daycare for the others as they work. But the current system that pays people to sit on their asses, when we have millions of illegals and massive unemployment is just idiotic, and unsustainable long term. Then again, you've got those feeling "the bern" that want to continue it and even expand the hell out of the gimme free @)(# bits.

Yeah, along with what Andrew said.. the whole "if you have a dependent, you get a free pass" thing is crap. There should be proof required that the dependent is so needy that the person can't work. Plenty of us were raised by working parents, so why those on gov't handouts (which is OUR money) should get a pass is beyond me.

Exactly. If a poor person is responsible enough not to reproduce, I don't know why he or she should be disadvantaged.

Birth control is a lot cheaper than orphanages — or food stamps. That's my choice.

Let's see, recent government successes:

• Flint, MI, switching its water source.
• The VA hospital care
• The DoD F-35 project
• The Big Dig in Boston
• The California high speed train to Nowheresville to arrive at half past never
• Obamacare (there are too many people who have insurance but can not afford to use it so that can't be considered "successful")

Should I continue? I'll see your orphanages and foster care with a mandatory birth control implant if you receive welfare. The implant can come out just as soon as you get off welfare.

If you're a baby daddy and can't pay your child support, the state should find you a job somewhere doing something mean and nasty but relatively well paying. Even picking up trash on the side of the road, if it comes to that. Or the guy who mucks out the sewer system.

Maybe even three strikes and here's your free vasectomy...

I'll see your orphanages and foster care with a mandatory birth control implant if you receive welfare. The implant can come out just as soon as you get off welfare.

Something like that would sure help cut down on the current scheme where so many people seem to run for office by offering to give away the most free stuff to those getting it.

Then again, I'd almost love to see voting limited by something basic: Be a net income tax payer. Or answer a couple basic math/civics questions randomized on every ballot, get too many wrong, vote doesn't count. Weed out people voting based on soundbites and promises of freebies vs knowing how reality works.

Seems reasonable.

People who earn money and pay taxes do so and provide for people who don't have earnings. People who don't earn money and pay taxes provide service hours to help out with the requirements of government programs.

Give of money or give of time.

For the people worried about babies, seriously? Look at the numbers. Yes this is 80% of this class of people. But that is only because you are already looking at a fraction of a fraction. ~240 thousand people in Maine use SNAP. This policy change removed ~10 thousand people from the rolls. A reduction of 4%. I doubt there was much SNAP fraud being caught either. I'm just speculating here, but with such a small percentage I think these were people who took advantage of a program they fully qualified for but did not really need. So once the program became even a little annoying they dropped out. So good for Maine. By changing their requirements slightly they saved themselves $13/year.

As for the shame angle, we in the US don't share a common culture any more than we share a common religion. You can't expect everyone to feel shame for the same things. Social pressure is ineffective when unequally applied. Also, why should people be ashamed of using government programs? The government has no significant morality. Is using the DMV any more embarrassing than using SNAP or even SS? Over 65 million people in the US get a social security check each month. Should they be embarrassed to be on welfare? How is SNAP any different? Please don't lie and argue that SS is 'their money'. It isn't. SS is welfare plain and simple.

Maine saved $13M/year. That one little letter makes such a difference. (Incidentally they spend $321M each year on SNAP.)

Once to describe something big we used 'astronomical numbers'. But the numbers have gotten too big even for astronomy. Now we use governmental numbers.

Now he can get back to protecting Maine's young white girls from Negro drug dealers.

If he doesn't get impeached first, that is.