Visit our friends at
The Bloomberg headline says “Trump Administration Moves to End Food Stamps for 750,000”, and that sounds bad during an election year. But as Scott Ott digs deeper into the story, he finds details that don’t make great anti-Trump clickbait.
Bill Whittle Now with Scott Ott comes to you five times per week thanks to our Members, who enjoy backstage videos, a Member-written private blog, private messaging and a vigorous comments section.
- with your podcast app.
- Watch us now on Amazon’s Fire TV by downloading the Bill Whittle Network app.
- Ask your Amazon smart device, “Alexa, play Bill Whittle Network on TuneIn radio.”
- Support Bill Whittle on Patreon.
11 replies on “The Truth Behind the Headline: Trump Cuts 750,000 Off Food Stamps”
Australia has similar rules on its unemployment benefits and ran into a problem in some rural communities. Zero job ads in the area for 9 months of the year yet they still need the population at harvest and sowing season. People literally could not look for 13 hours worth of jobs because they did not exist. This will be the driver in some US states too. Its a problem that can’t be solved with macro economic tools or government regulations.
This will mean that some rural towns will depopulate and die. No easy solutions.
Despite John Q Public being the most generous person in the world, he is still too stupid to differentiate between his personal charity starting at home and the public largess doled out through confiscatory government taxes. John Q Public will continue to vote for sliver-tongued politicians who promise to give them someone else’s money. Bread and circuses have finally arrived in America!
Outcome based articles are a result of outcome based education.
How might Minimum Wage laws further stymie those looking for just 20 hours a week to pay for groceries?
#FightForFifteenDaysSeverance
in the 70’s my girlfriend and I found ourselves divorced parents of 3 children each with no child support to help us. I found an entry level job with a fortune 500 company, didn’t pay a lot but enough to support us. She went on welfare and always had some guy in her life to help her out. I suggested she apply at my company but she couldn’t be bothered. Fast forward to 1995 and she was living in subsidized housing in a poor part of town, I paid for her ticket to come visit. As I was showing her around my 4/2 home she stopped at the sliding glass doors looking out at the oversized backyard pool and said “I could have had all this, too”, I replied “yes, you could have” All too often welfare is a short term gain for a long time loss.
Bill,
It is not only destructive to the receiver it is also destructive to those who are FORCED to give the aid. To FORCE one person to help another for ANY reason is as wrong as theft because that is what it is. This is especially true if the so called government passes a law that makes such theft legal. It is something that the government should NOT be doing.
Scott,
Able to work? Nonsense. Did they work to get an education and/or to gain skills to be able to be worth hiring for a job? In far too many cases, school and acquiring skills and a work ethic is the last thing such parasites wanted to do. They just wanted to have fun and they didn’t care if it was at someone else’s expense. If you want to help them, do it but with your own wealth.
Everybody else who expects to live off the dole:
Get a job and earn your keep or find someone who will voluntarily give you your free lunches and everything else you expect for free. If you can’t do that, go suck rocks. You do not have the right to live at the involuntary cost to anyone else no matter what your excuse. I did not cause your plight and you have no right to put the government’s gun at my head to force me to help you out of it.
Oh? You say you are not my slave? No you are not and neither am I yours. Yet by demanding I be forced to feed you, house you, cloth you, and give you anything else you might happen to want, you are demanding I be your slave.
As someone who has used SNAP in a pinch before, I’m all for ending the entire program. In my experience as a healthy adult who during the Obama administration hard times had to recover from being dumped from a bad live-in job situation, it was easy to get at least 6 months of money to buy myself food. All I needed was to have no money or credit I could use to get food, and an urgent problem with my former boss that affected my ability to provide food and housing for myself and yet not need to go to a shelter.
Although my family was a long ways away, friends at church were allowing me to crash at their place for a few months of job searching. The church would have also provided food if the government hadn’t stepped in. Which is precisely my point. We do not need to pay all sorts of government bureaucrats to provide what is readily provided by our society of everyone who needs it, namely food. And government WILL not provide what our wealthy society finds difficult to provide which is an impetus to get off of the street and get your life sorted out and get to work.
So I’m telling you, SNAP isn’t needed even for mothers with toddlers they need to care for. It would not be hard for our societal safety net to ramp up the small amount needed to take care of a few extra mouths that are working and still need help. The help is there. People just have to be willing to ask for the charity instead of demanding “rights” from the government. But that would require they offer some gratitude to those helping them…which they can’t stand having to do. We have become a nation of highwaymen and thieves.
As for my situation, when they wanted to offer me more than 6 months of food after I had managed to land a full time job, I refused it. I know when someone’s really stealing out of my pocket while pretending to charity.
Someone needs to explain to me how Bloomberg can run for ANY public office.
I work for a group of News papers and Radio stations.
I may not run for public office unless I quit first!
Something about having undue influence over the election.
Might be a good idea if someone in the news media would look into that.
Plus, he is an abject moron. But that doesn’t seem to be a disqualifier, at least to the left. I think there is a height requirment for office too, no? 😉
“War on working families.” ? As usual, the left does not understand the meanings of words. Similar to what they present as an “expert witness” or “expert” in anything. They never are.
The only word in that sentence they understand is “on”. All other words in that sentence are fungeable according to the left and open to wide, wide interpretation.