Poll of the Day > Trump says People who DON'T WORK, then you DON'T EAT!! Do you agree with that???

(+) Yeah! (+)

Mick Mulvaney, the man behind Trump's massive budget cuts to Medicaid and Food Stamps is telling Americans "IF YOU DON'T WORK, YOU DON'T EAT!!" as he's telling able-bodied americans to "get a job" if you want to live!!

The budget is slashing the benefits to the poor to get the government spending back and reduce federal deficit but also to fund Trump's wall and give money to pregnant women for paid leave

He said "If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, we need you to got o work"

His plan entitled "A New Foundation for American Greatness" wants to balance the budget in 10 years through the cuts on medicaid and welfare programs such as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

It will create room to infrastructure and paid family leave.

Mulvaney confirmed the rumours that they will cut 800 BILLION to medicaid and restructure SNAP that shifts costs to the states who use it.

They are trying to motivate states to right-size their welfare rolls by forcing them to take more of a burden.

Other programs that are hit include disability programs, retirement benefits for fed employees and farm bill subsidies, the same group of voters that voted for Trump.

They claim they are making hard decisions to "make america great again" and they figure they can repay their 20 TRILLION debt in 3 DECADES..that is ONLY assuming the economy reaches 3% GDP growth that the admin is touting.

They said the repeal of Obamacare will save 250 billion and reforms to medicaid and children's health insurance will shave off another 616 billin.

272 billion are cut from the welfare system as much of it come from SNAP, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

The Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit will save another 40 billion and prevent the government money going to illegal immigrants whose children are US citizens.

A slash to spending on the federal student loan programs also whacks another 143 billion on the deficit.

Defense spendig is also going way up to 639 billon that includes 54 billion that Trump requested for discretionary spending.

Trump wants 44.1 billion for Department of Homeland Security, 2.6 billion for the wall, 300 million to hire border patrol and immigration agents.

He also wants 1 trillion on infrastructure through federal funding, incentived investments and expedited projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline.

6 weeks of paid family leave for new moms and fathers including parents who adopt..

The overall losers of this are the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program, Earned Income Tax Credit, The Child Tax Credit, Obamacare and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families...

Do you think people who don't work should Starve? let's see what people will vote

Mulvaney - Boogeyman

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/23/01/408BE04500000578-4531730-image-a-14_1495500830335.jpg

Trump - Boogeyman

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/23/01/40ACCAFB00000578-4531730-image-a-10_1495500811618.jpg

Trumps Demon Book -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/05/23/01/40AB187D00000578-4531730-image-a-15_1495500877096.jpg
---

Long may he reign!
---

Sounds like he hates freedom.
---

Does being a drug dealer count as a job? Cause that's the only option some poor people have.

Realistically are there even enough jobs out there for every able body citizen to fulfill? Not counting positions that are being outsourced or less valid, more stuff is being automated nowadays.
---

Reminder: Most of the states that most need federal SNAP assistance are hard red states.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Realistically are there even enough jobs out there for every able body citizen to fulfill? Not counting positions that are being outsourced or less valid, more stuff is being automated nowadays.

Quick answer: no. No, there are not.
---

Full Throttle posted...

Mick Mulvaney, the man behind Trump's massive budget cuts to Medicaid and Food Stamps is telling Americans "IF YOU DON'T WORK, YOU DON'T EAT!!" as he's telling able-bodied americans to "get a job" if you want to live!!

So basically Trump didn't actually say that? Some other guy is implied to have said it? Also, telling people to get a job doesn't sound bad >_>

minervo posted...

Does being a drug dealer count as a job? Cause that's the only option some poor people have.

lolwut? No, that's not. In fact, getting started in that is harder than getting started in a lot of normal jobs.

InfestedAdam posted...

Realistically are there even enough jobs out there for every able body citizen to fulfill? Not counting positions that are being outsourced or less valid, more stuff is being automated nowadays.

Clearly yes, if we have illegal immigrants taking jobs. Granted, maybe not if we let them have those jobs in cosntruction, etc, instead of giving them to US citizens.
---

Explains why Melania is so thin.
---

wendy's just announced they're replacing their employees with a kiosk what does he think about that?

CharlesBronson posted...

wendy's just announced they're replacing their employees with a kiosk what does he think about that?

Pretty sure kiosks can't cook the food.


...yet.
---

dainkinkaide posted...

Reminder: Most of the states that most need federal SNAP assistance are hard red states.

Based on what? The highest per-person are generally blue states and areas:
goo.gl/trVjod
(Although, tech speaking, the per-person is also available on the below)

And by population it's once again mostly blue states.
http://snap.insidegov.com/

The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.
---

No, you can eat as long as you have money, regardless of your employment status.
---

Zeus posted...

The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.

Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)?

CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale.

Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it."

You people want to evolve right? You don't want to be just stuck in our current forms, correct?

We're never going to grow as a society if we continue to allow these lazy fucks to skim by.
---

Nah kids don't work and eat p good by the looks of things.
---

Seems harsh.
The general idea of getting people to work is a good one, but shit happens. Some people can't reasonably work, and I feel like we as a civilized society ought to take care of them regardless.
---

Trump is literally a cartoon villain

SkynyrdRocker posted...

Trump is literally a cartoon villain

he's literally Norman Osborne AKA The Green Goblin from spider-man
---

The plan is so evil and backwards. Taking food and aid from the poor, services from the disabled, even more cuts to federal employees, and the safety net of healthcare from anyone w/ pre-existing conditions.

All to pay for adding onto a defense budget already larger than the next dozen countries combined, a useless fucking wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for, "encouraging" private companies to buy up government-owned infrastructure for short term gains and long term loss, and of course tax cuts for the rich. They need that money, you damn working poor leaches!

Trump is pro murdering civilians
---

streamofthesky posted...

The plan is so evil and backwards. Taking food and aid from the poor, services from the disabled, even more cuts to federal employees, and the safety net of healthcare from anyone w/ pre-existing conditions.

All to pay for adding onto a defense budget already larger than the next dozen countries combined, a useless fucking wall that Mexico was supposed to pay for, "encouraging" private companies to buy up government-owned infrastructure for short term gains and long term loss, and of course tax cuts for the rich. They need that money, you damn working poor leaches!

and yet you still got droids like zeus preaching how it's the right thing
---

Lokarin posted...

Trump is pro murdering civilians

Something like 80% of evangelicals voted for him. If they believe at all in their big book of myths, they should be pretty upset right now.
they aren't

Some people can't work, you know.
---

Zangulus posted...

Most people are obsessed with the white collar work, that well paying blue collar is felt to be beneath them.

It's part of the reason I'm glad I'm in manufacturing. I can basically move anywhere and find employment.

I can see this being an issue with many of parents pushing their children to do well in school/college and get a good paying and steady office job of sort.Various tradeskills pays well but not many enter that field of work.
---

streamofthesky posted...

Lokarin posted...

Trump is pro murdering civilians

Something like 80% of evangelicals voted for him. If they believe at all in their big book of myths, they should be pretty upset right now.
they aren't

Christians also believe in murdering civilians tho
---

jedirood posted...

Some people can't work, you know.

doesn't matter to help he'll force puppies and babies to work if he has to
---

Zeus posted...

dainkinkaide posted...

Reminder: Most of the states that most need federal SNAP assistance are hard red states.

Based on what?

Based on which states would most need the federal reimbursement to actually pay for SNAP programs, which are predominantly red states.

The states with the largest percentage of their populations using SNAP programs tend to be red states. Since they have a larger percentage of their populations using these programs, the burden to pay for these programs falls on a smaller percentage of the populations of those states to pay for it through state revenues. With a smaller (or non-existent) federal reimbursement for SNAP assistance, these predominantly red states will find it more difficult or impossible to afford SNAP programs.
---

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.

Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)?

CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale.

Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it."

% of population is one indicator, but overall consumption is equally important. Plus you have benefits per person, which is another metric (where again blue states lead). There's no one perfect metric, but two key metrics go to blue.

Lightning Bolt posted...

Seems harsh.
The general idea of getting people to work is a good one, but shit happens. Some people can't reasonably work, and I feel like we as a civilized society ought to take care of them regardless.

When you're doing it as more than just a short-term measure, that makes people less likely to even look. Plus, as a society, we ALREADY have measures for that such as food banks. It shouldn't go through the taxpayer for everything especially since, in many cases, a lot of food just goes bad in peoples' homes (and at retailers) which should instead be used.

Lokarin posted...

Trump is pro murdering civilians

By no rational argument could be that considered murder.

jedirood posted...

Some people can't work, you know.

And those people get benefits from other programs. If you're on disability, you get workers comp and/or social security, for instance. You also get living expenses covered by other programs. While we like to look at each thing in isolation, most people on one program are on others.

NightMareBunny posted...

jedirood posted...

Some people can't work, you know.

doesn't matter to help he'll force puppies and babies to work if he has to

How much did Archie Comics pay you to say that?
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.

Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)?

CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale.

Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it."

% of population is one indicator, but overall consumption is equally important. Plus you have benefits per person, which is another metric (where again blue states lead). There's no one perfect metric, but two key metrics go to blue.

Again, saying CA has the most poor people doesn't say much, it has the largest population in the U.S., so of course it does. So raw numbers of people in each state is a worthless metric, reinforced by the fact that 4 of the 5 top states for # of poor people also happen to be the 4 most populous states. I guess IL needs to get its shit together, though.

Consumption per person is also pretty meaningless. The higher the cost of living in an area, the more benefits a person will need just to get by, and blue states and urban (ie, blue) areas are the most expensive to live in.

What matters is % of the population that use SNAP.

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.
---

InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.

The US also routinely slashes crops in years of excess to keep prices high
---

So it's good to know Trump thinks people like me, who WANT to find a job but can't or is unable to for now, should just be denied food and starve, Fuck you Trump you lunatic.....
---

Okay, so create jobs. Put people to work, invest money in employment programs, finance career training. Demonstrate that right-wing fiscal policy leads to the growth of domestic employment numbers.
---

they want to keep the min wage low for the precise thing, more JOBs, more production. more lowerclass people

if they fire people and send them home with a packed lunch that sends them the wrong message

work or die mother fucker
---

it's honestly not hard to find a job if you actually go looking for one that isn't a typical "office" job or a stocker/cashier at a store.

manufacturing places are looking for workers ALL the time, and they're usually pretty lax on the requirements because of that.

but no, everyone these days wants to be pewdiepie. sit at home, play games, and get paid for it.

that's not how it works.
---

So... simple Duckbear fact-checking, using Fullthottle's own post:

Topic title:
Trump says...

Reality:
"Mick Mulvaney, the man behind Trump's massive budget cuts to Medicaid and Food Stamps is telling Americans..."


Poll question:
Would you let people who don't work starve to death?

Reality: (typos preserved)
He said "If you're on food stamps and you're able-bodied, we need you to got o work"

helIy posted...

it's honestly not hard to find a job if you actually go looking for one that isn't a typical "office" job or a stocker/cashier at a store.

manufacturing places are looking for workers ALL the time, and they're usually pretty lax on the requirements because of that.

but no, everyone these days wants to be pewdiepie. sit at home, play games, and get paid for it.

that's not how it works.

As I see it the labor market is only really "working" if the ratio of available jobs matches the demographics of the people looking for them.

Not EVERYONE'S going to find a job in their field, I get that, but the proportion of people looking for work in a certain field should be reflective of the jobs available in that area.

Padding job numbers with low-paying, non-skilled work in a market that's pining for 8-5 salary positions doesn't really correct the problem. That doesn't create the strength the economy deserves to have when there's skilled labor looking for jobs that use those talents.
---

Full Throttle posted...

reduce federal deficit

lmfaoo
---

vicedungwinsgam posted...

Full Throttle posted...

reduce federal deficit

lmfaoo

Deficit is one of the best methods of inflation proofing...
---

Lokarin posted...

InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.

The US also routinely slashes crops in years of excess to keep prices high

Coworker of mine use to work for a market. Said that they would cut open boxes of unsold product before throwing them away to ruin the product so as to discourage dumpster divers.

I understand there are some liabilities with giving away "old" food but at some point if you know the food is gonna go to waste anyway, might as well give it to those who can't afford much. Hell, I feel meals at schools should be completely free. I can understand charging a price if there's limited supply but with how much we waste I doubt supply is ever an issue. There's gotta be a balance between helping society while allowing a business to profit.
---

jedirood posted...

Some people can't work, you know.

It's supposed to be only able bodied people.
If someone has a medical reason then that's different.

Here's the question nobody is asking:
If we're saving all this money why isn't some of it going to restore a clean water supply to Flint, Michigan?
---

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

The top 5 states for SNAP are California, Florida, Texas, NY, and Illinois. 3 are blue, 1 is red, and 1 is purple.

Top 5 in what way? Most people receiving? Most money spent on it (which is effectively the same as the previous metric)?

CA, TX, FL, and NY are the most populated states in the U.S. If every state had 10% of their populations getting SNAP, they'd have the most simply by scale.

Which states have the highest % of their populations getting SNAP benefits? That's the stat that actually matters for showing which ones "depend the most on it."

% of population is one indicator, but overall consumption is equally important. Plus you have benefits per person, which is another metric (where again blue states lead). There's no one perfect metric, but two key metrics go to blue.

Again, saying CA has the most poor people doesn't say much, it has the largest population in the U.S., so of course it does. So raw numbers of people in each state is a worthless metric, reinforced by the fact that 4 of the 5 top states for # of poor people also happen to be the 4 most populous states. I guess IL needs to get its shit together, though.

Consumption per person is also pretty meaningless. The higher the cost of living in an area, the more benefits a person will need just to get by, and blue states and urban (ie, blue) areas are the most expensive to live in.

What matters is % of the population that use SNAP.

No, the argument isn't which state has more by %, it's which states are more dependent on it. If you have a higher amount of money going to a state, that state is arguably more dependent. Likewise, if people don't need as much support, they're less dependent on the support. For instance, if one person made enough that they only qualified for $40 and their neighbor qualified for $80, they wouldn't be equally dependent.


InfestedAdam posted...

On another note, with how much food that goes to waste in the U.S., I see no reason to not serve the excess food to those in need. Hell, plenty of food are still good after the sell-by date but are thrown away by markets.

Yes, which is a point I raised as well. As it stands, SNAP is an unproductive use of resources instead of simply giving partial reimbursements for goods that might expire and giving those to the poor.
---

Solid Sonic posted...

helIy posted...

it's honestly not hard to find a job if you actually go looking for one that isn't a typical "office" job or a stocker/cashier at a store.

manufacturing places are looking for workers ALL the time, and they're usually pretty lax on the requirements because of that.

but no, everyone these days wants to be pewdiepie. sit at home, play games, and get paid for it.

that's not how it works.

As I see it the labor market is only really "working" if the ratio of available jobs matches the demographics of the people looking for them.

Not EVERYONE'S going to find a job in their field, I get that, but the proportion of people looking for work in a certain field should be reflective of the jobs available in that area.

Padding job numbers with low-paying, non-skilled work in a market that's pining for 8-5 salary positions doesn't really correct the problem. That doesn't create the strength the economy deserves to have when there's skilled labor looking for jobs that use those talents.

While I find merit in your argument, the fact that people are able to do something else but unwilling to do so isn't a fault of the market. The jobs are still there and being left undone, which makes it a somewhat artificial scarcity. Granted, SOME of the problem is employer-side as well where they're trying to underpay talent or expecting too much for their compensation rates.

In general, that's the problem with all of these silly universal college ideas. As it is, we don't necessarily have enough jobs to support every major. And, as a more general rule, if you're training 100 people to be president but only 1 person can be president at a time and serves 4 years, whose fault is it really? The market for not having enough presidents or people for not trying to meet existing needs and demanding that things change to suit them? The reality is that societies function best when they're based on need rather than trying to artificially create a society where nobody does essential tasks because everybody wants to pursue hobbies.

EDIT: Additional caveat, the biggest thing that we're failing to do as a system is create entrepreneurs which would help to address some of these problems. Most of our schools encourage a hive-mind rather than individualism and free thought.
---

"Let's bring back starvation in the developed world."
---

Full Throttle posted...

as he's telling able-bodied americans to "get a job" if you want to live!!

Whilst I disagree with the message regardless, I find that the bolded part is being overlooked.
---

Mead posted...

"Let's bring back starvation in the developed world."

"Let's teach a man to fish instead of giving fish."
---

Unless he wants to put forth an initiative that guarantees everybody a job, that's not going to work.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Unless he wants to put forth an initiative that guarantees everybody a job, that's not going to work.

Again, there are other programs in addition to this as well as private solutions, charities, etc. And, if he was guaranteeing jobs, it wouldn't work because people would complain about the jobs and the ACLU would throw the whole thing under the bus.
---