As a change of tone, here's something that /pol/ might not get mad about.
>According to a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.
>Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly.
>Maine is another powerful example in favor of work over dependency. Similarly to Kansas, Maine saw a major decline in its caseload after instituting a work requirement. Within the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps plunged by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015.
>>72295558
>forcing people to work for food
this is terrible it's just like hitler but worse
>>72295558
Free-stuff BTFO.
Bernie was never so extreme as to offer something without any conditions, was he?
>>72295638
>Forcing people to grow food for other people for free
We call that slavery, nippon
>>72295638
I'm sure someone will bite.
>>72295781
Maybe but they have to work for it
>>72295638
>forcing dumbshit niggers to get up off of their asses to work for their beloved foodstamps
>racist and cruel
please fuck off of this board forever proxyjap
>>72295558
communist europe required work for food stamps too, shops were practically all empty so you couldn't buy anything and was forced to use stamps.
if you wanted to eat, you had to work so you could earn food stamps.
>>72295558
This is pretty legit. Inner city dindus definitely find some dude to impregnate them so they can extort money through the welfare system because "muh babeez hongry"
So, this is definitely a good thing. I don't think it solves the chronic single-motherhood tho...
Niggers.
What are the congenitals going to do? Why is this a priority? What """""""work""""""" do the Republigoy demos do? Fuck all
>>72295558
>institute work requirement
>Suddenly, statistics demonstrate that the only people getting food stamps are people who work
And if you require people to be 18 to get a driver's license, then only people 18 and over will have driver licenses.
What the fuck kinda spun-out stats are these?
And as for people leaving and having jobs within three months? Ok, so what were the stats on that BEFORE the work requirements, before you go getting impressed by the absolute lack of demonstrating anything vaguely resembling effectiveness?
There's rampant welfare abuse in the united states, I'm fine with this.
This proof is racist.
>>72295638
Isn't that kind of the unspoken rule of civilizations?
>>72296272
It's not proof of anything. Reread the stats. It doesn't demonstrate anything, at all.
It states that requirements result in benefits going to people who meet them. And here are some stats about how long people go before getting jobs, after exiting the program.
>>72296219
>>72296385
>Maine saw a major decline in its caseload after instituting a work requirement. Within the first three months after Maine’s work policy went into effect, its caseload of able-bodied adults receiving food stamps plunged by 80 percent, falling from 13,332 recipients in December 2014 to 2,678 in March 2015
>>72296524
But what is that supposed to demonstrate?
Yes: if you put in a work requirement, then people don't get food stamps unless they meet it.
Ok. So... what's your point?
If you put in an "has to own three cats requirement," it would mean you'd have to own three cats to get them.
What are these stats supposed to demonstrate? That it is possible to put requirements on programs?
>>72296219
>>72296385
>Furthermore, with the implementation of the work requirement in Kansas, the caseload dropped by 75 percent. Previously, Kansas was spending $5.5 million per month on food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults; it now spends $1.2 million.
Get the fuck out, shill. Explain how this isn't a good policy.
>>72295951
Canada have you ever gone fishing?
You know how you trick the fish into biting a hook by making the hook look like food? We call the disguise you put on the hook "bait". And when a fish bites the hook we say he "took the bait".
That jap just got you to take the bait, which was surprising because to us it seemed like "low-quality bait".
Next time you see something that looks like that, maybe you'll think twice before you bite, ok?
>>72296624
BUT THERE'S NO BENEFIT TO HAVING THREE CATS. THERE IS A CLEAR BENEFIT TO SOCIETY BY HAVING A WORK REQUIREMENT FOR WELFARE.
>>72295558
this is awesome, my dad will be happy as fuck to hear this, as several states including our state (MA) is doing something similar.
>>72296698
What is your point? That fewer people were getting food assistance? Hey, we could just cut the program completely and save all that money.
Where is the supposed benefit in these stats?
There is nothing in the stats that defends these policies.
For all the stats tell you, it just means more people went hungry.
>>72296775
Ok, so what are the stats supposed to tell you?
What information do you gain from the OP?
That putting requirements on programs to limit the number of people eligible for them does, in fact, limit the number of people eligible for them?
Was this something you needed stats to comprehend?
>>72295638
nature is definitely worse than Hitler, you're right.
If you live in ks you need to exit asap literally the most bankrupt state
>>72296798
That's the point. If you are able-bodied and choose not to work, you go hungry (even though there are zero articles or statistics to show this has actually happened on a widespread basis in Maine or Kansas).
>>72296890
Gas lightning.
We've got a similar thing over here called "work for the dole" or whatever.
Except it doesn't work because there are no jobs so they use it as free labour instead of actually hiring someone.
Nice policy, exactly what Socialists advocated in ex communist countries. Getting welfare while doing nothing only existed in capitalist societies. I prefer the soviet way better. Its either agree to work or go to gulag.
Soviets did many things wrong but some things right.
>>72297074
Do you not get the question?
What information are we pretending that the stats in OP contains?
>>72297077
Gas Lightning, Greased Lightning, either way, its not gaslighting.
>>72295638
Now if we can only fix our budget. Brownbackistan isn't all pretty guys
>>72296624
I understand what you're saying, but you're essentially asserting that 11,000 people pretty much just starved to death. The article doesn't say anything about this but I doubt that's the case.
Firstly, if people don't chose to work for their food stamps then it's their choice to go hungry. Maybe they have a lot of food stocked up or have a garden or are self sufficient or something and don't need the food stamps. Either way they made the choice not to work, and while you can argue that people shouldn't have to make that choice, then that's your opinion but you won't find many people who agree with you.
Secondly, if people aren't going hungry and are getting off food stamps then they never needed to be on them anyway.
Thirdly, the fact that welfare expenditure dropped is validation in itself.
>>72295558
I live in Kansas and I can confirm the food stamp crowd has gotten less terrible recently. It's still total bullshit that pop and junk food qualifies for it though.
>>72295558
>Need job to get food stamps
>Can't find one so get DQ'ed from program
>Rolls drop like crazy because there's only so many jobs to go around
>The fags that implemented the requirement point to the giant wave of disqualifications as proof of success
Look I'm all for cutting dindu payments but it's some real pussy shit to pretend you're helping the situation with a phoney baloney work requirement. You're not "only giving money to people who deserve it," you're instituting a savage cut to the program. Which is great but you didn't spontaneously turn those people into productive workers. If you want to cut welfare just cut it and don't play pretend like you're some secret altruist.
Great! Now people can buy more shit! Consume, consume, consume!
>>72297329
>11,000 people pretty much just starved to death.
No, I'm not.
I'm pointing out that there is no information in the stats posted in the OP.
>Here is how long it took someone to get a job, after leaving the program with these modifications to it
Those statistics contain no information, without something to compare it to. What was the rate BEFORE the change to the program?
>After drinking coca-cola, 99% of people had 10 fingers!
Are you stating that they didn't before? How does rattling off stats about after the change impart meaningful information?
>Thirdly, the fact that welfare expenditure dropped is validation in itself.
Validation of what? Program is harder to get into. Fewer people are in it, afterwards. What is that supposed to "validate?"
The trouble is that the job placement fags ship you off to fast food or retail, instead of helping you get a real job. Say, in construction or something.
Fuck that noise, I'd rather starve.
>>72297077
These are things normal people say in arguments all the time. It's only gas lighting if the person saying it knows they're wrong and is trying to fool the other person into questioning their own sanity or memory.
>>72295638
sheeeitt it's like anudda slavery
>>72297916
Also, I asked the same question in both posts, so it's not gas lighting anyhow. In fact, I've asked it in like 6 posts: what useful information is supposed to be contained in OP?
There is no "before" to compare the "after" stats to. It imparts no information. You can't even claim a correlation, without before stats. It is meaningless stat-prattling.
>>72297597
DAE le epig NEET master race?
Is Kansas THE redpill state?
First the Kansas City School experiment and now this
>>72298163
I'm not a NEET, I would just like a job that I'm qualified for where I don't have to take guff from a fucking babby/dropout/fucking customers.
Fuck the service industry, it's for high school kids and immigrants.
>>72298117
LEARN TO
READ
E
A
D
>before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.
>Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly.
>>72298478
Before stats provided:
Percent in poverty
Percent in severe poverty
Percent working
Percent working over 20 hours
Block two provides:
Percent who found work within 3 months after exiting
Percent found work within 1 year
Average income increase
Percent above poverty level after exiting
There is not actually even one before stat that can be compared to even one after stat.
They are meaningless numbers presenting no information, because they are not compared to anything.
How are you guys so bamboozled by this lack of information?
Do you see numbers and just get confused and think it must be science?
>>72298265
That was in Missouri you fucking moron.
>>72295558
It's a good idea. Teach a man how to fish, instead of teaching him to beg/rob you for/of fish.
>>72299476
You'll just make fun of these middle aged adults for working a teenager job.
>>72297542
We understand that causation isn't correaltion but WE DON'T CARE. If people aren't starving because of the work requirement, it means the requirement isn't detrimental and is saving the state government a lot of money while also stimulating economic growth and revenue. You turn a money sink into a boon.
Whatever point you want to make is lost on the results: less taxpayer money going to layabouts.
>>72295558
This is the equivalent of dangling a piece of food in front of someone and telling them they can have it only if they do this or that.
I think it's retarded.
>>72299551
No way. We're not libshits from SoCal. I feel bad for really old folks that have to go back to work a retail job but I never mock them. Only a TruNEET, literal basement dweller believes working is slavery.
>>72299770
>We understand that causation isn't correaltion but WE DON'T CARE
You don't seem to be able to read data.
There is no correlation. No causation. No information that is any value in any way, to anyone, to support any kinda of claim about the efficacy of the change to the program.
Why would someone publish stats specifically leaving out the information that would make it meaningful, if the conclusions you want to draw were supported by that information?
>>72298117
If you hadn't continued to ignore the first part, where the people were actually getting job so they were improving their economic situation enough to not require Food Stamps. But hey, you can continue acting obtuse.
>>72296698
>Get the fuck out, shill. Explain how this isn't a good policy.
Source says 60% found work within a year. Doesn't mention anything about the 40% who starved. Basically it's saying that if you institute a work requirement for food stamps a little under half would starve. And has people have pointed out of course instituting a work requirement is going to result everyone using them having a job, that doesn't mean that there aren't people unable to find a job who aren't starving. I mean you're probably a social Darwinist who doesn't care but there really isn't an excuse in a nation as wealthy as the USA for anyone to not have access to two hots and a cot.
>>72299919
>Service industry isn't like being a servant
lol Okay, bud.
>>72295558
downer party?
https://soundcloud.com/couchtruthing/thank-you-doc
>>72300018
Yeah, I really don't care.
>>72300580
Service =/= Slavery. Being reimbursed for your services is not enslavement.
>>72301198
You've never worked fast food. It is literal servitude. Not slavery, but damn close.
And for the government to see it as a legitimate job enough to list it with placement agencies is fucking disgusting.
As if it's my fault that my preferred employers would rather hire Mexicans.
>>72299919
>Only a TruNEET, literal basement dweller believes working is slavery.
Except it really is just a form of decentralized slavery. You might not have an owner but you're effectively a slave to the system. Even if you're working for yourself you're still working to satisfy the demands of the economic system rather than just your own needs. At the end of the day the money you're reimbursed with is just a tool of control. It's worthless cloth that you're told is valuable. Most people dont' even have the option of only working enough to survive it's 40,50,60+ hours a week 50-52 weeks a year or fuck off. If you think people are free you're fucking deluding yourself.
>>72295638
Careful about using jap proxies, jew... they say to fear the samurai for a good reason.
>>72295558
>literally slavery to the governement
Die, Tyrant.
>>72298478
>2008
That's about when the niggers from Chicago started flooding to my city for easier welfare.
>>72302007
b8
if you want money, you gotta work
>>72296162
actually, it may not solve it, that would require killing most of the niggers,
but it certainly would seem to incentive the inverse; having to work, its a natural progression from that to realizing two incomes in a single household is far more beneficial than one.
I wonder how the Jews feel about this?
>>72301767
that's a very negative view of it; while perhaps true in some sense,
i believe its more accurate to portray money as an embodiment of your work hours. Instead of spending those hours toiling away for food, housing, clothing, etc, you simply trade those things for projections of future earnings and earnings.
If you didn't go to your "shitty job" then what would you need to do to survive? find a patch of land, till it, build a house, dig a well, dig a toilet, find game to eat and skin, prepare the game, find a helpmate, etc, etc, etc.
Its too easy to forget how much time it really takes to do what we take for granted. But i think you are trying to say you want other people to pay your way to comfort, and it isn't fair you have to do it yourself.
>>72302137
Maybe you should institute a work requirement for gibs, that seems to get rid of them pretty well.
>>72302647
>i believe its more accurate to portray money as an embodiment of your work hours.
Except it's not. You can make money without working at all. You can lose it without getting anything in return.
As for having to farm, build your own house, etc, preindustrial serfs worked LESS than modern workers, and still managed to satisfy their own needs (most of the time) as well as the needs of their lords without any modern technology.
sauce:
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/hours_workweek.html
>>72302922
you aren't going to get me to argue against working less,
but my point is that a monetary system is not inherently evil. Ours has become evil because we longer control it. Working for money is not inherently evil.
>>72302922
They also didn't have the creature comforts now built into the modern requirements for a structure to meet code, or a device beyond the wildest imaginings of the first season of Star Trek in their pockets, or as much competition.
>>72295558
Florida is doing the same as my lazy unemployed uncle got his stamps cut and moved back to New York.
>>72303165
>They also didn't have the creature comforts now built into the modern requirements for a structure to meet code, or a device beyond the wildest imaginings of the first season of Star Trek in their pockets, or as much competition.
They also lacked modern tech that should in theory reduce the need for labor. And access to modern toys is pretty irrelevent if you never have the time/energy to enjoy them. You would have to argue that while people may have less free time the time they do have is somehow more enjoyable and further it is more enjoyable as a result of the current labor system rather than just incremental improvements in quality of life due to technology.
As for >>72303157
Yeah obviously money isn't inherently evil. It's just that you have people working for x amount of money while generating x + y amount of value and having no say in how that value is divied up nor any alternative system being available.
>>72301598
You have the attitude of a whiny little girl. I'm not surprised they would hire a spic over you
>>72295892
Underrated
>>72303568
Literally nothing stopping you from pulling the thing my uncle did, taking a small loan for a very small plot of land, and living of it for decades by not being an idiot. Or making your own company. Or running into an island and living there for the rest of your life. This argument you are enslaved because you need to work to continue to live is completely ridiculous, and the argument you must somehow have control over what you produce no matter what your work is even worse, because if you were to go back to the life my uncle has chosen you would spend your time doing nothing but feeding yourself. It does to a pretty simple life, but it does mean you don't get a choice for fuck.
>>72295558
but what about areas of the country where people on food stamps usually have (and have had) jobs?
many years ago i worked retail and every non-management employee was on food stamps, and only got on food stamps because the job didn't pay enough. in other words, they weren't on food stamps and were forced to find employment, but rather the substandard pay forced them to apply for food stamps.
>>72304942
Not wanting to work for pocket change under the thumb of a high school kid makes me a whiny little girl?
Don't be mad because a dingo ate your baby. Be glad that it won't become a gasoline-huffing emu fucker like you.
>>72295638
>all these retarded retards not understanding what sarcasm and a joke is
I am sorry japan, I thought it was funny though
>>72298647
Critical thinking isn't taught anymore, probably because the teachers themselves wouldn't be able to teach it.
>>72295558
Why don't they just get them a job instead of giving away "food skamps"?
t. someone who gets EBT monthly
