Some of the state’s most vulnerable residents recently learned they were getting a 4.1 percent cost-of-living increase in their federal Supplemental Security Income from Social Security. Then they heard from the state that — surprise! — their food stamps would be cut, in some cases by exactly the same amount. This is the sort of eligibility rigor that makes perfect sense in policy debates but can seem like a cruel joke upon delivery to the people who rely on public assistance to survive — especially when you consider the slipshod (or worse) administration of huge government contracts going to rebuild Iraq and the Gulf Coast.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Monkeyhawk on All Americans entitled to all of health reform
- Monkeyhawk on Tiahrt takes aim at Democrats, Moran
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/4
- Monkeyhawk on Abortion could still derail health reform bill
- BlueJay on Tiahrt takes aim at Democrats, Moran
- Chas on Open thread 11/4
- Politico on All Americans entitled to all of health reform
- Politico on Tiahrt takes aim at Democrats, Moran
- Regular on Tiahrt takes aim at Democrats, Moran
- TomPaine on Tiahrt takes aim at Democrats, Moran
11 Comments
I had the same thing happen when I took a minumim wage job. By taking the job we had to put the childs in daycare. Which was $300.00 a month. My take home for the job was $400.00 a month. we received $300.00 amonth in food stamps. We lost the food stamps because I made too much and that fact that in order to go to work I had to take on another $300.00 a month in bills.
Welfare the way it is set up is a trap. You can not get a head so you can get off of it. Right now it is better to be on welfare then to work for $7.00 an hour. The system needs to be overhauled and common sense installed. Along with the standard of living, so there is a insentive to get off of welfare.
That’s what you get when you elect republicans.
Cut capital gains tax on the rich and fund it by stealing the food out of the mouths of poor children.
It isn’t the government’s job to put food in anybody’s children’s mouths. That would be the job of their parents.
One of my clients who I mentioned previously in a post just got a $12 increase in his monthly social security income, then received a letter stating his food stamp allowance will be cut from $26 to $16 per month. I wonder how much the bureaucrats spent to implement these changes, why not just leave it all alone, afterall, isn’t it just six of one and half dozen of the other?
“John” is mentally ill and retarded. He grew up in a state institution and has only lived on his own for the last 10 yrs (he’s in his 50s). He recieves $567 per month in social security income and $16 per month in food stamps now, out of that he pays his own rent, which is $340 per month.IT IS the government’s responsibility to take care of him, Todd, that’s why social programs are so important. Without them, he’d be homeless. The institutions are gone, and the safety net put into place to help the severe and persistant mentally ill and disabled is being eroded. That’s one of the reasons why we have so many homeless now. Many of them are the mentally ill who have slipped through the cracks in the system.The next time you’re driving down Broadway and see some dishelved person talking to themselves, instead of fearing or judging them, please realize they’re most likely a result of the failed government system that is supposed to be protecting the vulnerable.
You admit that the government has failed to protect that poor man. I have news for you, the government fails at nearly everything they try to do. And yet, you want to continue to throw money down the toilet.
I wish I could help, but the feds are confiscating 35 percent of my paycheck every week.
Remember that when your house is leveled by a tornado.
Okay. Whatever that has to do with anything.
Todd, the government is all he has, if it wasn’t for the few benefits he receives he would be dead for sure. It’s better than nothing, but people like him can’t survive anymore cutbacks.Personally, I’d rather see 35% of my income go to help people like “John”, than pouring money into some crazy war that we can’t win.
The reality is, there are going to be cutbacks. Nobody, not even the Democrats, have the political will to raise taxes. Everyone in Washington knows they’re too high as it is.
You may not like the war, but that money isn’t going to be given to the poor in any case. I’d rather it just be given back to me, so that I can donate as I see fit.
Anyway, the point of my response to Ahmad has been completely missed.
You’ll find out.
Todd, how much of that 35% is payroll taxes (FICA)? Those who make more than about 90g a year don’t pay those, you know. But they’ve benefited hugely from the tax cuts. The $300 payments aside, I would wager that you couldn’t buy a large pizza with your “savings.”
And deliberately running up huge deficits (as they’re doing now) is going to cost a hell of lot more in the long run. Remember, we’re borrowing the money–with interest.
Fiscal irresponsibility is a trademark of this president, as it was with his economic mentor, Ronald Reagan. Only Bush is far, far worse, and he has a “yup, boss” Congress behind him.
writerdog accurately described the problem with the current system. It’s very punitive, and any minimal success is immediately punished, for the supposed purpose of saving tax dollars.