Jeb wants to abolish food stamps

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Not just a lovable dork

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeb-bush-welfare-cuts_568f9881e4b0a2b6fb6f9b57

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

You'll be allowed to keep your guns and hunt for food.

[Ebsy]

Thank goodness TRUMP will protect our Foodstamps and Section 8 housing!

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Thank goodness TRUMP will protect our Foodstamps and Section 8 housing!

Or you might get a higher paying job with Trump and not need it.  Foodstamps and section 8 housing are important though!

[Pyro]

You'll be allowed to keep your guns and hunt for food.

This is my favorite post in a long time.

[Averroës Nix]

Obvious pander to the GOP's crucial comic book villain faction. Downright evil.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

Yes and notice how Democrats can never understand that and instead of listening, they just call for his head on a plate.

[Ebsy]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

So they'll continue misusing block grant TANF funds to fill budget holes, but now with even more federal tax dollars meant to help the poor! Gee, how could that go wrong?

[Averroës Nix]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

Poor houses? Euthanasia? Soylent green?

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

So they'll continue misusing block grant TANF funds to fill budget holes, but now with even more federal tax dollars meant to help the poor! Gee, how could that go wrong?

I've proposed a welfare policy that I think can work for everyone in the Economics threads.  In our country today I'd implement it at the federal level, but in a perfect country these programs are run at the state level.  In fact if you look at how the states are doing, it's light years better than D.C.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

The headline is a bit misleading - or at least gives the wrong impression.  He isn't eliminating assistance programs for the poor, just block granting it to states to come up with something more effective.

Poor houses? Euthanasia? Soylent green?

Why would you propose those things? States do a better job on their own.  In fact if you look at how well many of the more Republican states are handling their programs in comparison to D.C. and the more Democrat states you'll be introduced to a whole new world of truth instead of just whatever you're hearing from Democrat politicians, the media, professors, teachers, and court rulings.

[Averroës Nix]

By what metric has SNAP been deemed so inefficient or ineffective that it requires a wholesale overhaul, anyway? This is almost literally getting into Marie Antoinette territory.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Most states would just recreate the food stamp program at the state level, as it is one of the more effective welfare programs, despite its shortcomings.   Plus there will be pressure from grocers and the like to keep it.

[An American Tail: Fubart Goes West]

You'll be allowed to keep your guns and hunt for food.

This is my favorite post in a long time.

Now that's what I call rugged individualism.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

Most states would just recreate the food stamp program at the state level, as it is one of the more effective welfare programs, despite its shortcomings.   Plus there will be pressure from grocers and the like to keep it.

Plus the states will do a better job at it and things will be even better.

[Adam Griffin]

Most states would just recreate the food stamp program at the state level, as it is one of the more effective welfare programs, despite its shortcomings.   Plus there will be pressure from grocers and the like to keep it.

And without very specific and guaranteed guidelines and restrictions (which would render block grants pointless), they'd likely create variations of that program that are much harder to qualify for and maintain. You should see how difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Georgia and other states following the bare minimums; hopefully, you're a pregnant female with 12 dependents and make $5 per year, because that's about what it takes. The federal minimums are ridiculous for it, as they'd likely end up being for SNAP et al.

[Brittain33]

The purpose of block grants is to change an entitlement to a budget line item, which both stops it from expanding in a recession and also, in theory, lets the feds take a big whack at the total without having to deal with the consequences on an individual level because the states can decide who gets cuts.

States won't just recreate the federal policy because a) they'll be getting less money, which will bite when there's a real recession again, and also because b) we've seen with Medicaid expansion that several states in certain regions of the country will take the opportunity to end the program for most recipients ("they don't vote for us anyway") and use the money in some other way.

[Torie]

The purpose of block grants is to change an entitlement to a budget line item, which both stops it from expanding in a recession and also, in theory, lets the feds take a big whack at the total without having to deal with the consequences on an individual level because the states can decide who gets cuts.

States won't just recreate the federal policy because a) they'll be getting less money, which will bite when there's a real recession again, and also because b) we've seen with Medicaid expansion that several states in certain regions of the country will take the opportunity to end the program for most recipients ("they don't vote for us anyway") and use the money in some other way.

Yeah, and unduly Balkanized social safety net structures based on state lines are just horrible public policy. Folks start moving around more based on local transfer payment structures. Did I ever tell you that I am not enamored much with states' rights?   Sure let them be experimental laboratories from time to time where such toe dipping into the waters is a good idea, to test out what works or not, but that is a matter of prudence, not right.

One thing about Jeb that I don't like much, is that he is not a very imaginative man, or one who thinks out of the box much. He's more of a plodder.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

So in other words it would be what we already have and cost federal taxpayers the same amount of money, but it would be administered by the states? Sorry, but what we have now is better. Programs administered by a state should be paid for by only the taxpayers of that state. I'm sure most liberals would agree with me that they don't want to pay federal taxes and have the money sent to other states where they have no (even theoretical) say in how it is spent.

If you pay taxes for food stamps, don't you want to make sure that's where they go?

[Maxwell]

So our boy Jebby is just finding a clever way to do away with food stamps. And this has to happen just as I was beginning to enjoy his turribad campaign.

[Virginiá]

I'm sure most liberals would agree with me that they don't want to pay federal taxes and have the money sent to other states where they have no (even theoretical) say in how it is spent.

Yes. Pretty much. Quite frankly, I'm sick of this never-ending Republican mantra of block grants and tax breaks. Their solution to everything is to just throw a tax break at it, or give a fat wad of cash to a state and tell them to "do whatever". That's fine and dandy, but while a state could do something better, they can also do something far worse. I want to know my money is contributing towards something that works, and not given to the discretion of state lawmakers who might not even want a food-stamp program to exist in the first place.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Most states would just recreate the food stamp program at the state level, as it is one of the more effective welfare programs, despite its shortcomings.   Plus there will be pressure from grocers and the like to keep it.

And without very specific and guaranteed guidelines and restrictions (which would render block grants pointless), they'd likely create variations of that program that are much harder to qualify for and maintain. You should see how difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Georgia and other states following the bare minimums; hopefully, you're a pregnant female with 12 dependents and make $5 per year, because that's about what it takes. The federal minimums are ridiculous for it, as they'd likely end up being for SNAP et al.

Variability in qualifications for Medicaid have to do largely with the fact that the states have to contribute between a third and a half of the total cost of the program out of their general budgets.  If states are getting money from the feds specifically for the administration of antipoverty programs, the tendency would go more toward getting your money's worth. That's not to say there wouldn't be constraints on the programs out of ideology, but the financial and political incentives would be different.  On the other hand, one snag you would expect with block grants that you do see with Medicaid is the distribution formulas to the states, which often do not correspond to actual need.

[zorkpolitics]

Maybe we can have a bipartisan solution:
Move the minimum wage to $20/hr (or $40K/yr) and encourage marriage.  Then a couple will earn $80k.  So there will be no need for medicaid, food stamps, housing assistance or general welfare, instead everyone gets a job.  Simple.

[Averroës Nix]

Most states would just recreate the food stamp program at the state level, as it is one of the more effective welfare programs, despite its shortcomings.   Plus there will be pressure from grocers and the like to keep it.

And without very specific and guaranteed guidelines and restrictions (which would render block grants pointless), they'd likely create variations of that program that are much harder to qualify for and maintain. You should see how difficult it is to qualify for Medicaid in Georgia and other states following the bare minimums; hopefully, you're a pregnant female with 12 dependents and make $5 per year, because that's about what it takes. The federal minimums are ridiculous for it, as they'd likely end up being for SNAP et al.

Variability in qualifications for Medicaid have to do largely with the fact that the states have to contribute between a third and a half of the total cost of the program out of their general budgets.  If states are getting money from the feds specifically for the administration of antipoverty programs, the tendency would go more toward getting your money's worth. That's not to say there wouldn't be constraints on the programs out of ideology, but the financial and political incentives would be different.  On the other hand, one snag you would expect with block grants that you do see with Medicaid is the distribution formulas to the states, which often do not correspond to actual need.

I will, of course, defend Medicaid to my death, but parts of it are a great example of how a federally-funded program administered by the states can get terrifyingly wacky as state officials attempt to glean as much funding as possible. Public officials in New York State literally use Medicaid as a verb.