Single moms currently would qualify; a traditional family ( with a kid or two and Mom not working) would qualify; and a single person working 25 or 30 hours (not unusual. I would think) would qualify. Clearly, a lot of Walmart workers do qualify now;a raise of the minimum wage to $12 an hour (or Walmart just paying their employees what other retailers do)would take care of this issue.

A single woman with octuplets needs to make 55K/year. Does the food stamp subsidy need to support that? I think people have a choice on where to work to meet their needs. They have a choice on to how many children have.

If people have choice of # of dependents, then they have the choice of the results from that choice. The Duggars need to make116K for the year, or they can be on food stamps. Would you support them being of assistance, since they chose to have so many children?

Bbauska - what about a widow with two kids?

bbauska wrote:They have a choice on to how many children have.

Please. Multiple births are NOT always a choice. Not unless you are advocating for selective abortions.

Only 1 of Ricky's links worked for me, and I didn't find it persuasive. It claims that in many states, there are more employees of Walmart on medicaid and food stamps than any other employer. They then go on to note that Walmart is the largest employer in these states, and sometimes by a lot, so it is logical that they would have the most people on these welfare programs.

The data for the amount of average benefits is 8 years old and applies to California only. It may still be accurate, or in fact higher given the times. I don't know whether it translates to less expensive states.

Even with all that, I think there is a logic fallacy. If Walmart didn't employ these people there would be more people on food stamps and medicaid, not less. Also, ACA will exacerbate this trend by making it more expensive to employ people, not less. If minimum wage rates go up, I would think that Walmart would do everything in its power to keep costs low, maybe by reducing hours or closing marginal stores.

freeman2 wrote:Well according to this article average salary at Walmart is $8.81 per hour. If you worked 2000 hours the gross income income would come to less than 18K. http://walmart1percent.org/top-reasons- ... -creators/
Federal guidelines indicate that an individual can qualify for food stamps if they make about 14k a year, a family of two if they make about 19K and a family of three if they make 24K.http://www.myfoodstamps.org/eligible.html
A couple of dollar raise in the minimum wage could make a lot of people ineligible. Since Walmart pays so low it is not hard to see the potential for manipulation with regard to hours so that employees can qualify for benefits

What percentage makes $8.81 an hour?

How many of those work 2000 hours? Can part-time workers get food stamps if they decline full-time work?

Won't many corporations look to slide workers under the threshold for Obamacare? Will they then be eligible for other benefits? Isn't that a hidden cost of Obamacare?

Danivon,
I like the widow with kids case. It is very similar to what I grew up with. Mother with father who left with when I was 6. He left 3 kids. We were on assistance for 2 years. It sucked, but we got off within 2 years after mom worked two jobs got off assistance after then. We used the help of family, friends and church and government for a short time.

Are you willing to stipulate that some cases are able to work, and don't?

Rudewalrus,
I do not advocate ANY abortion. I only say the choice is there for abortion, selective or otherwise; and that people always have choices. Since many people are pro-choice, they are responsible for the choices they make. There is always the option of adoption also.

They have the choice as to what job to have/not have.
They have the choice as to get married or not.
They have the choice as to how many kids to have/not have.
They have the choice as to how many people live in a residence.
All choices have situations that will result. When people make choices, they need to accept the results with them also.
Welcome to Freedom of Choice.

Perhaps I should be called pro-choice/pro-responsibility. They need to go hand in hand.

MY sister just got a promotion at Walmart (Good job Chris!) She makes more than min wage.

danivon wrote:Bbauska - what about a widow with two kids?

In addition to all that Bbauska wrote, what about life insurance?

You have to be an absolute, blithering idiot not to get term life when you are young and have kids. It's cheap and it can provide a LOT of help if you die unexpectedly.

WORD!

Speaking of choices, the way the system is set up now, it encourages people on welfare to have more kids. More kids mean more money as well as extending the timeline. It encourages women to not get married, it encourages many to not work, the system is broken yet also by establishing such a dependent society, it grows a welfare state that will vote against any who call for reform and the problem simply gets worse and worse.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Bbauska - what about a widow with two kids?

In addition to all that Bbauska wrote, what about life insurance?

You have to be an absolute, blithering idiot not to get term life when you are young and have kids. It's cheap and it can provide a LOT of help if you die unexpectedly.

So if hubby is dumb enough not to get it (or all it does is clear debts and pay funeral costs and not much more), that is the widow's fault?

Considering that a marriage is the junction of two people's minds, lives, and cooperation; she is partially at fault.

She makes the choice as to who she marries... (Item 2 above)

u

bbauska wrote:Danivon,
I like the widow with kids case. It is very similar to what I grew up with. Mother with father who left with when I was 6. He left 3 kids. We were on assistance for 2 years. It sucked, but we got off within 2 years after mom worked two jobs got off assistance after then. We used the help of family, friends and church and government for a short time.

Are you willing to stipulate that some cases are able to work, and don't?

Of course there are people who can work but don't (especially in the wake of a recession that means there are fewer jobs around), but that is changing the subject - we were talking about food stamps for people who are in work. A single parent with two kids would appear to qualify for food stamps on minumum wage and a 35 hour week- or it's very close.

I think it would be better f the state were not subsidising low paying employers, and it would also mean that work would be an incentive -if getting more hours or more pay means losing a benefit, it is not so attractive.

bbauska wrote:Considering that a marriage is the junction of two people's minds, lives, and cooperation; she is partially at fault.

She makes the choice as to who she marries... (Item 2 above)

And the kids, what choice do they make?

Even if a marriage is what you say it is (not sure about the 'minds' thing), and maybe it is for you in yours, I'm not happy with the automatic judgemental attitude. Maybe the life insurance could be mis-sold.

I have life insurance. And life assurance. And a pensioj with a payout on pre-retirement death. But I also happily pay National Insurance knowing that the state is there in case all else fails. Insurers do go out of business, or write in sneaky caveats after all.