×

534
535

Flaired Users OnlyMajority of voters believe able-bodied people receiving food stamps should be required to work: Poll (justthenews.com)

submitted by HellYeahDamnWrite

all 116 comments
sorted by:
best (suggested)
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]squunkyumasEisenhower Conservative 118 points119 points  (4 children)

Even if a majority of people vehemently disagreed, it would still be the correct approach.

[–]MikeyPhNew York Conservative 29 points30 points  (2 children)

This is something about democracy that the left fails to understand. Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't make it the right course of action. The founding fathers knew this. We know this. That is why we don't have a democracy.

[–]squunkyumasEisenhower Conservative 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Indeed. It's also why change in our government is slow by design. That's the issue with candidates perpetually trying to appeal to the youth vote - young people tend to want things now, and our government thankfully isn't set up that way.

[–]MikeyPhNew York Conservative 9 points10 points  (0 children)

I try to encourage my students and all young people to think as historically as possible; to divorce ourselves from our parties and even our beliefs for a moment, pluck ourselves out of the present and think about a current problem or a proposed solution and how that will move and live in history. I think the left fails at this, which is why FDR was able to push sweeping changes to our economy, they couldn't think about what might happen in 100 years when our population begins to level off.

I just today had this thought about bonsai trees and the cultivation they require and the time it takes to perfect such an art. I am going to try it, but the point is that such an art can help bring wisdom and that historical perspective. You have to think 10, 20, even 30 years down the line. We don't have much that we do anymore where time must be respected and the weight of our mistakes that aren't felt immediately can be remembered and then felt over years and years. How these mistakes or these achievements echo through time is so critical and yet they aren't considered nearly as much as they should be.

[–]Narrow-Trash-8839Conservative Christian 102 points103 points  (26 children)

I’ve never seen a logical, or even decent emotional, argument for why able bodied people should be able to get free money when they choose to not work.

It’s nearly equal to stealing.

[–]LatinNameHereNC Conservative 32 points33 points  (10 children)

I’ve never seen a logical, or even decent emotional, argument for why able bodied people should be able to get free money when they choose to not work.

The answer is because they have young children, which means going back to work would require paying for daycare. In my neck of the woods, daycare costs about $350 a week per child.

If you have two kids, working can cost you more than you earn.

Also -and I speak from experience here- the daycares that take welfare daycare subsidies are often not anywhere you want your kids.

[–]StedeBonnet1Conservative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"The answer is because they have young children" NOPE SORRY. The legislation requiring work requirements only is for able bodied adults with no kids and it only requires 20 hours per week or job training. No one should receive benefits if they are unwilling to work.

[–]Narrow-Trash-8839Conservative Christian -1 points0 points  (8 children)

This is a tough one. A parent almost always chooses to have a kid (even an accidental kid is a choice). So with that choice comes the additional costs.

Why should their choice be covered by hard working Americans?

This is a real question. Not just me shouting to the sky.

[–]LatinNameHereNC Conservative 23 points24 points  (6 children)

This is a conservative sub. We champion pro life here.

Suggesting that women have abortions to avoid difficult economic situations not appropriate here.

And by the way, stay at home mothers who get divorced are also frequently stuck on welfare while they start their new lives - especially when the fathers fail to pay child support.

Why should their choice be covered by hard working Americans?

Because we don't starve children here.

[–]xAdakisConservative 97 points98 points  (8 children)

The problem is the subjectivity in defining who is "able bodied" and the type of work they are capable of doing.

Just as an example, take a disabled or handicapped person. There are many that have some serious life-debilitating disabilities that may keep them from working, but you would never be able to tell just by looking at them. It is also none of your business what their disability is and they have no obligation to tell you.

Thus, when you see them getting a larger paycheck than you do working 60 hours a week for just sitting on their ass, you think that they are otherwise "able-bodied" and just choosing not to work.

My father is 100% disabled veteran. He gets a check for about the same amount of money that I am bringing home as a software developer every month. He cannot work because he has debilitating pain that is not easily controlled. He cannot sit or stand for any long periods of time, nor can he lift more than maybe 10 pounds with any regularity. Yet, if you watch him in his daily routine, he seems to be an otherwise healthy man in his late 60s.

I'm not saying that there is not abuse or corruption out there with people doing nothing for free money . . .I've seen plenty of that actually. . .just saying that it is subjective and would have to be handled on a case by case basis.

[–]NotAnotherRedditAcc2Conservative 31 points32 points  (1 child)

The problem is the subjectivity in defining who is "able bodied" and the type of work they are capable of doing.

We do this (admittedly imperfectly) for every single social security and VA disability claim already.

It is also none of your business what their disability is and they have no obligation to tell you.

Well, yeah - I'm just some rando. But I'd argue it is absolutely the business of anyone they are requesting disability-benefit related money from.

[–]xAdakisConservative 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I was trying to point out how it appears to the average person uninvolved with the personal affairs of someone else.

Of course, the welfare/disability people would know the full story, but even those processes are not infallible.

[–]Narrow-Trash-8839Conservative Christian 20 points21 points  (2 children)

You make sound points. But I’d like to make it clear - nothing that you’ve said disagrees with what I’ve said.

You said “he can not” work. So naturally, he would be excluded from anything i said about those that CAN but CHOOSE not to.

I’m currently at 30% for VA disability. Should be more around 90% (and working on it) Even if i ever get to 100% some day, I’ll work IF I CAN. And I’m sure your dad would if he could.

If you re-read my comment on this, you’ll find that i use very clear language. I don’t mean anything besides EXACTLY what I’ve said.

[–]chillthrowawaysConservative 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s just different people. My neighbor and his wife are both on disability. I don’t know for what I’m not gonna ask but he at least has no problem tearing apart and rebuilding cars, building garages, flower boxes around the house… etc. contrast that with the time I went to get a tire changed and a guy in a wheelchair rolls out with a electric impact wrench and a jack on his lap, gets the tire off faster than I could have and puts a new one on the rim. I’ve never forgotten that day any time I didn’t feel like working. If he can manage so can I

[–]Sure-Wishbone-4293Patriot 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Who knew people would think you should work to justify your subsidy? A novel idea indeed!

[–]intrigue-bliss4331Conservative 24 points25 points  (4 children)

What the hell is the opposite position? Able-bodied people should be able to sit on their asses and mooch off of strangers who struggle themselves? Bizarre that anyone would take that position, but I guess that's the left for you.

[–]JerseyKeebsConservative 9 points10 points  (1 child)

They'd say things like, because they need it more than you, or it's cruel to force people to prove they're not able-bodied enough to work, or it's too difficult to officially prove disability. Unfortunately it's really hard to prove some invisible illnesses or mental problems at the best of times, so it's harder to catch scammers who just say they have chronic fatigue, or long Covid, or something stupid that can't be disproved.

[–]chillthrowawaysConservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eh nobody is forcing anyone to work. But if you want free money you kind of should prove that you can’t otherwise what’s going on here?

[–]LatinNameHereNC Conservative 30 points31 points  (6 children)

It's nearly impossible to get food stamps if you are an able bodied adult. You have to be disabled or elderly.

The vast majority of people receiving food stamps are eligible because they have minor children.

Young children means childcare costs if you go to work. Subsidizing daycare costs more than giving food stamps - and it means the child spends less time with their parents.

The idea that able bodied people are just sitting around collecting benefits is just not reality.

[–]ITrCoolChristian Conservative 31 points32 points  (6 children)

I fully agree with this.

My father had to get on food stamps temporarily when I was little, as he was between jobs and was searching. We were very low income as a family at the time. He couldn’t STAND being on that program because we were eating on the tax payers’ dime.

He found a job a couple months later, thankfully, marched right down to the local gov office and tried to return the stamps we hadn’t used, and promptly got chewed out for it. He was told he had no choice but to spend off the remaining stamps he was issued. So he and mom used the rest of the stamps to buy food for a local community food pantry since we had more than enough.

What also blew his mind was how easy it is for anyone to get on that program. Like literally, there is barely any restriction or accountability. It’s insane.

[–]LatinNameHereNC Conservative 5 points6 points  (0 children)

What also blew his mind was how easy it is for anyone to get on that program.

No, it should be that easy, because the alternative is starving kids.

Welfare isn't about the adults - it's about the children. Most people getting SNAP have minor kids.

[–]Dazzling_Pink9751Conservative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They do work though. Very few people don’t work. I don’t think work requirements should be past 57 years old or women with small children who can’t afford daycare. Older Americans can still do some community service. Some may have disability, but not enough of one for social security. I think it should work like unemployment, where you must provide proof of application and job interviews, but people will still be able to get food while looking for a job. I think older Americans should be drug tested. Anyone not working in that later age group, is probably homeless. I am not in favor of giving drug addicts/ alcoholics sitting on the road panhandling and collecting food stamps.

[–]social_dinosaurConstitutional Conservative 14 points15 points  (5 children)

Too many people are in the welfare system that do not belong there. Subsidizing them only encourages them not to seek employment. The Democrats have no problem with it because they believe that those on the public dole are more compliant, more likely to vote for them, more controllable. Under the CARES act the Dems were paying people more to not work than they'd get at their jobs.

Too many who need assistance do not get it because of those gaming the system. Without changes society will become addicted to the government with no incentive to provide for themselves. The liberals would love it.

[–]s1lentchaos2A Conservative 25 points26 points  (4 children)

The problem is we don't ween people off assistance but yank the rug out from under them. It's entirely possible that a small increase in pay can cause a drop in benefits such that someone is worse off after making more money. Benefits need to be reduced like more like taxes, so you are never bringing in less money after a raise.

[–]social_dinosaurConstitutional Conservative -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Public assistance doesn't work on a percentage basis. You either qualify or you don't. Eligibility parameters are set up dependent upon the national poverty rate and if you aren't classified as such you don't qualify. There has to be a cutoff. Besides, people who can work shouldn't become dependent upon public assistance anyway. It's supposed to be a temporary solution, not one for long term.

Edit: spelling

[–]s1lentchaos2A Conservative 33 points34 points  (1 child)

That's the problem causing people to decide it's better to just not work or not bother with getting raises or promotions because they will lose benefits worth more than the increase in pay. If we switch to percentage based where we can slowly scale back benefits as people earn more than they can safely take raises and promotions to slowly work their way out of poverty.

[–]Lanky_Acanthaceae_34Come and Take it 18 points19 points  (13 children)

Too many single moms using the federal funding to replace getting a job. They get to stay home with their child for free

[–]LatinNameHereNC Conservative 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Go look up how much a single adult with two kids gets in cash/snap benefits in your state. Now, I want you to imagine what it's like to live at that level of poverty.

I'd also have you check and see what daycare for two kids costs. In my metro, about $350 a week per child, so $2,800 a month for two children. Maybe $2,500 if you get a discount for two kids. $30k a year just for daycare.

So those single moms you think are so lazy, it's more likely they don't work because after daycare, a job would give them less income than working.

I suggest you do some googling about the "welfare cliff". The way the system is set up now discourages parents on welfare getting employment.

[–]ComputerRedneckScottish Surfer 14 points15 points  (1 child)

Read an article about 25 or so years ago in Detroit Free Press. A 13/14 year old was asked why she was pregnant AGAIN. Her answer was that her momma told her the more babies she had the more money she would get from the government and wouldn't have to work.

[–]Magehunter_SkassiPaleoconservative 16 points17 points  (5 children)

It's so ridiculous. Welfare for single moms was meant for divorcees and widows, not women getting knocked up out of wedlock by unemployed felons.

[–]JerseyKeebsConservative 7 points8 points  (0 children)

And they know it, too. I've known a few couples with a kid, who are together, unmarried, but fraudulently claim separate households to get the single mom / low income benefits. One couple is even in a different state, but still claims the benefits from the HCOL state they're from.

That's not what those benefits are meant for, but it's so easy to scam.

[–]Certain_Economics_41Conservative 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I don't know that I'd say they should be required to work, because that implies they won't receive food stamps if they get fired. But they should at the very least be required to actively look for and apply to jobs if they're unemployed and able. That's the bare minimum requirement to receive unemployment benefits in every state I've lived in.

[–]Dazzling_Pink9751Conservative 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly, it needs to work like unemployed.

[–]Quirky-Marsupial-420Conservative 5 points6 points  (1 child)

It’s one of the very earliest ideas ever in this country.

He who does not work shall not eat.

You are not entitled to others people labor or money - ESPECIALLY when you choose to not be a participant in society.

[–]murderinthedarkConservative 4 points5 points  (1 child)

It would really help with the homeless junkie problem.

Drug addicts shouldn't be able to have their whole life + drugs subsidized. I'm tired of paying for people to smoke drugs and jerk off in public in front of my kids.

[–]lolyodaMug Club 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean I don't think necessarily work, but like mandatory community service atleast.

[–]RotoDogConservative 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I was expecting this to be closer along party lines, 73% is surprising. Feel like it should say: “Large majority”

[–]Carl-j88aaNo Step on Snek 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's along ideological lines.

  • 73% includes all conservatives, libertarians, centrists & moderate Dems.
  • 15% mouth-breathers, who answer every poll, "Durrr... I don't know."
  • 12% Marxists

[–]red-african-swallowBlack Conservative 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a firm believer that the biggest subsidiary for illegal activity is the food stamp and welfare.

If working causes you to lose benefits then just deal drugs in cash to buy that new car or Playstation.