Why would anyone have a problem with working 80 hours a month

You’re raising a concern that many people share — about how social safety nets interact with personal responsibility, family planning, and long-term poverty. It’s an emotionally charged and politically complex issue, and honest discussion requires acknowledging both the real problems of dependency and the structural realities that shape people’s choices.

Here are some key points worth considering if we want to have a factual, balanced conversation:

1. The data on “benefit abuse”

• Research shows that most people on programs like SNAP, housing assistance, or Medicaid use them temporarily, often for less than two years.
  
  
• The majority of recipients are working or actively seeking work. Wages in many sectors simply haven’t kept up with rent, childcare, and food costs.
  
  
• Fraud or intentional manipulation of benefits (for example, having additional children to increase aid) is statistically rare. The added benefit per child is usually far less than the real cost of raising that child.
  

2. The role of incentives

• It’s true that any welfare system creates incentives — good and bad. But the evidence doesn’t show that higher birth rates among low-income recipients are primarily driven by benefit levels.
  
  
• Fertility among low-income women in the U.S. has actually declined over the past few decades, even as benefit programs expanded modestly.
  

3. The moral and policy tension

• On one hand, society has an interest in encouraging personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.
  
  
• On the other, it also has a moral obligation to protect children — who can’t choose their circumstances — and to prevent deep poverty.
  

Punitive approaches (like cutting off benefits after a certain number of children) tend to increase child poverty without significantly changing adult behavior. Programs that support family planning, education, and job stability tend to reduce dependency more effectively.

4. A productive path forward
If the goal is to reduce long-term reliance on benefits while protecting kids, evidence points to:

• Expanding access to affordable childcare and contraception
  
  
• Raising wages or earned income tax credits to make work pay better
  
  
• Providing stable housing and career training that help families transition off aid
  
  
• Reducing administrative cliffs, where people lose all benefits at once when they start earning slightly more
  

 

@Os Trigonum
@Salvy
@RB713
@basso

These people have the power
To work for their money

 

That's the power America gives, this is why The Mexicans want it...

 

Excellent post. Thank you for this.

Here are the main reason why SNAP recipients find it difficult to work 80 hours a month-

• Health limitations: Physical or mental health issues can make it impossible to work.
• Caregiving responsibilities: People may need to stay home to care for children, the elderly, or a person with a disability.
• Homelessness
• Lack of available jobs: Some people live in areas with high unemployment and few job opportunities.
• Lack of resources: Obstacles like a lack of reliable transportation, affordable childcare, or stable housing make it difficult to secure and maintain a job.

Many of these people can get exemptions to the work requirement, but many will fall through the cracks due to the work requirement - especially the homeless, those in low employment areas and those who lack resources. Because benefit fraud is so rare, I would rather give SNAP benefits to the one person who doesn't need them if it keeps 99 people fed who do indeed need SNAP benefits.

 

I read this as 80 hours a week and I immediately said never again to myself.

SNAP is a good welfare program. It is just as much for the farmers as it is for the poor peoples.

 

SNAP is pretty tiny. The bigger issue is that SNAP is poorly ran and heavily lobbied by big sugar.

So I am going to skip past the 80 hour a requirement thing. Not important.

I would double or even triple SNAP funding. instead of going through the cumbersome process of qualifying people, I would instead give limited vouchers to nearly everyone , limiting it SKU specific foods, similar to WIC.

The idea of people buying garbage food on SNAP is wrong. Chips, soda, cookies ... all of it needs to be removed from eligibility. Poor nutrition contributes to

 

Did you use ChatGPT, Grok, or Gemini to cut and paste this from? Easy to spot!


GOOD DAY

 

More Importantly Why do we allow WAL-MART get employee wage subsidies in the form of SNAP
Then turn around and get that Snap Money

Pay Employees so little that they qualify for Snap Benefits.
The Employees then take their Snap benefits and spend at WalMart

Walmart gets paid twice
Why do you think that is ethical/moral/good or legal

Rocket River

 

Since before I was born, this country had made the decision that the bread lines seen during the Great Depression would be no more.


So we came up with several programs, SNAP being the most successful. As with any complex system serving humans, it will never be perfect, but it accomplished what was intended.

However, we've been backsliding in recent years. The pandemic stressed a lot of folks and modern food lines started popping up like this, as food insecurity affected more than those living around the poverty line.


Now, with inflated food costs and the suspension of SNAP, we are about to combine the two. I swear, these Repub guys do not read a lick of history. If they did, they would understand that nothing destabilizes a society faster than hunger. Then again, that may very well be their goal--a goal driven by fantasies of winning a civil war. Just idiocy and internet memes substituting for thoughtful policy. Lord help us all.

 

This reasoning is weird.

If you can work, you shouldn't need food assistance (but that's a different discussion, because some ppl work multiple jobs and still don't make enough to feed their families).

It’s exactly those who can’t work 80 hours a month and are poor that need food assistance. I guess you could also say, "just let them die of hunger," but I digress there a bit.

Your actual question is phrased wrong - I assume your concern is about those who con the system. The solution to that isn’t some stupid backward logic like “80 hours a month.” The solution is to prosecute those who con the system for stealing.

 

Yes I thought it was obvious. My intellect doesn't need to be wasted arguing with conservatives. They are easy marks, low hanging fruit that's easy to take down.

 

I'm not sure I agree with the part about giving it to nearly everyone, but overall I agree with this post.

 

We are a wealthy enough country that we can afford to give everyone a basic amount of food. Instead of wasting hundreds of millions of dollars trying to manage eligibility, put that saved cost into actual food and hand it out more freely.

Anyone can apply and get instantly qualified for a set UBI amount, say $100 a month in produce, $100 meat, $100 dairy. It acts as a government coupon, you scan it and automatically credits at the register. The government can then either increase these voucher amounts to drive demand (put farmers to work) or decrease the voucher amount to reduce demand to help with items that are in short supply or whatever nonsense they will want to abuse.

If someone feels they need more, then they can apply.
Wealthy people would be eligible. If you're a high earner, $300.00 a month in food vouchers is not a high amount and likely considered a low class subsidy.

And with all the delivery services, this can be ran from a warehouse - it doesn't need to be at the supermarket line.

Leaving people to do the responsible thing just doesn't happen. Thats why some people get upset at programs like this.

 

the lack of insults and/or name-calling is a key diagnostic

 

Does that include WalMart?
If someone has a job . . .they should earn enough to not qualify for Snap.

Rocket River

 

These Repub guys do not read, full stop. Period.

Typical Republican thinking. If, say, 5% of SNAP recipients are abusing the system, kill the program and let them all f***ing starve.

Billionaires and millionaires want extra government handouts and tax breaks? Not an issue: they're not losers!!

They've been looking forever to destroy any legacy of Democrat presidents. FDR's social safety net. (Project 2025 is taking aim.) LBJ's voting rights act (the Federalist Society has that one in the crosshairs). The Affordable Care Act (f*** it, that's Obamacare, and we want to erase Obama from history, amiright?)

There's a racial or class tone when it comes to dismissing SNAP recipients. But, for example, "Nearly 1 million Appalachian households rely on SNAP benefits, which is a higher participation rate than the U.S. as a whole (1 in 8 households)".

Donald Trump has revealed the Repugs for what they are. The few decent ones left are forced out or cowering in the back of the room lest the MAGA-bots and trolls turn their high-powered spotlights on them.

 

We b**** and moan about things that are relatively small in spending such as Whitehouse repairs, vacations and PBS. Yet we basically do nothing to push healthier food consumption for Americans in general. The amount of money it costs the USA in health related consequences is massive…. Yet a handful of lobbyists can control policy for 350 million people… it’s why I say the priorities by both parties are really skewed.

 

It’s easy to say both parties are bad, but that misses the nuances.

There was actually bipartisan support for healthier food. The 2010 Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act (the one championed by Michelle Obama) passed fairly easily since no Republican senator objected, though a majority of House Republicans voted against it, and it was signed into law by Obama. But many prominent Republicans mocked her initiative to fight childhood obesity as government overreach, calling it a nanny-state move, big government in school cafeterias, and too much regulation. After that, there was much less political appetite to reform SNAP benefits in a healthier direction. So no, it wasn’t that both parties didn’t care. Democrats cared, and every Republican senator cared, along with a few dozen in the House. But a handful of popular Republicans and their media allies like Rush Limbaugh and others poisoned the well with politics.

 

Walmart made $158B in profit in 2024. Yet if full-time Walmart employees rely on SNAP, taxpayers are effectively subsidizing the company’s labor costs. This means public funds are being used to support private profits, a system that shifts the burden from corporations to taxpayers. That’s a form of exploitation.