New Mexico Work For Food Stamps Requirement Blasted By Critics

[Rey C.]

I don't understand why some people are upset by this requirement. Why should a person be able to get something for nothing and not be compelled to make some attempt to work??? And even more odd, why would people in power think that it's better to have people be fastened to a nanny state and be virtual slaves to government handouts rather than build self-worth and esteem by providing (something) for themselves??????? I'm confused by all of this.


New Mexico work for food stamps requirement is coming back. Starting in October, people in New Mexico, will be required to work for several hours per week in order to receive food stamps.The mandatory work order for the food stamp program, which was in place before the recession is being blasted by Democrats and organizations that help low incomes families.

Governor Susana Martinez, has announced that she is reimposing the order that requires New Mexicans to work in order to benefit from food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

Over 400,000 people receive the government aide in the state.

The mandatory order existed in New Mexico prior to the recession, but was annulled due to the fact many residents simply could not find jobs.

But now that the economy has been stabilized, the Republican politician who might run in the presidential election in 2016, want her voters back in the work field and volunteering to help others in need.

The Human Services Department said in a statement that work-related requirement for low-income and poor folks was waived temporarily, it was not planned for it to stay in place indefinitely and explained what the system will look like.

Teens who are between 16-17 must attend school or participate in a job training program to get their checks.

Single recipients with no children, who are between the ages of 18-59 will have to work 20 hours per week to get food stamps.

As for parents with kids over the age of 6, they must actively search for employment or perform community service to obtain food-purchasing assistance.

Pregnant women, caregivers of children under the age of 6, seniors and disabled people who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are exempted.

The 20-hour work requirement can be waived by obtaining employment, taking part in community service or participating in a job training program.

Organizations and Democrats are slamming Susana Martinez for the proposed job search changes, claiming that she is making it even harder for people living in poverty to put food on their tables.

 

[Jagger69]

Teens who are between 16-17 must attend school or participate in a job training program to get their checks.

Single recipients with no children, who are between the ages of 18-59 will have to work 20 hours per week to get food stamps.

As for parents with kids over the age of 6, they must actively search for employment or perform community service to obtain food-purchasing assistance.

Pregnant women, caregivers of children under the age of 6, seniors and disabled people who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are exempted.

The 20-hour work requirement can be waived by obtaining employment, taking part in community service or participating in a job training program.

Organizations and Democrats are slamming Susana Martinez for the proposed job search changes, claiming that she is making it even harder for people living in poverty to put food on their tables.

Considering the exemption requirements, I don't see anything to complain about here. You want to help people living in poverty to put food on their tables? Send them to school, teach them a trade or teach them to work and, next thing you know, they aren't living in poverty anymore and are able to provide for themselves without the need for assistance. More states should enact this type of policy. I'm sorry but if you aren't caring for young children and are making no effort to take care of yourself you are simply lazy and irresponsible and your behavior should not be rewarded or encouraged.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

 

[Johan]

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

And alcohol-tested
And tobacco-tested
And Chocolate-tested
:laugh:

 

[mongo18]

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

Oh look at that, a conservative suggesting a policy that's already been proven to be a huge waste of time and money!

 

[D-rock]

So what happens if a person really can't get a job that meets the requirement? This seems pretty stupid and shortsighted. There almost isn't a "job training" program in the country that isn't a joke and is really job training. "Job training" to me means you actually teach vocational programs that train people do the actual work where people get licensed to do a job that will dramatically increase the chances to get hired. Telling them to create a resume or giving somebody short common sense advice isn't "job training".

Community service implies that somebody that doesn't have a job and is so poor they struggle to buy food has total and reliable transportation to get to the "community service". Nobody sees problems with that? Does this mean that people doing "community service" are also essentially taking a actual job away from somebody that community would actually have to pay for to get done? Seem kind of counterproductive since this isn't a punishment, and probably isn't stuff nobody else would do if they were paid for it by an employer.

If that state really feels this way you know what a non-dumb-ass solution would be. For the state to almost completely eliminate food benefits except for a few limited circumstances, BUT to also crate and guarantee citizens that don’t have one a decent, safe, reasonable, living wage (actual living wage, not surviving wage) job they could reasonably get to, even if that meant the state had to create the jobs themselves just for that purpose. That would be fair. People that are poor need a job and money and some actual legitimate hope. I'm sure all those poor people are going to be so thrilled that a lot of people are so eager to give them that great self worth and esteem instead of, you know, actually fucking helping them in a meaningful way. (Which would be the actual thing to get them esteem, but that's to hard and would require actual sacrifice on the part of people.)

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

At who's expense? Drug testing isn't free, and it's profoundly nonsensical to make the recipients pay for it when it's a program the help people in poverty in the first place. The cost wouldn't be worth it to catch the minority who would be caught.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

I don't understand why some people are upset by this requirement. Why should a person be able to get something for nothing and not be compelled to make some attempt to work??? And even more odd, why would people in power think that it's better to have people be fastened to a nanny state and be virtual slaves to government handouts rather than build self-worth and esteem by providing (something) for themselves??????? I'm confused by all of this.


New Mexico work for food stamps requirement is coming back. Starting in October, people in New Mexico, will be required to work for several hours per week in order to receive food stamps.The mandatory work order for the food stamp program, which was in place before the recession is being blasted by Democrats and organizations that help low incomes families.

Governor Susana Martinez, has announced that she is reimposing the order that requires New Mexicans to work in order to benefit from food stamps, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP.

Over 400,000 people receive the government aide in the state.

The mandatory order existed in New Mexico prior to the recession, but was annulled due to the fact many residents simply could not find jobs.

But now that the economy has been stabilized, the Republican politician who might run in the presidential election in 2016, want her voters back in the work field and volunteering to help others in need.

The Human Services Department said in a statement that work-related requirement for low-income and poor folks was waived temporarily, it was not planned for it to stay in place indefinitely and explained what the system will look like.

Teens who are between 16-17 must attend school or participate in a job training program to get their checks.

Single recipients with no children, who are between the ages of 18-59 will have to work 20 hours per week to get food stamps.

As for parents with kids over the age of 6, they must actively search for employment or perform community service to obtain food-purchasing assistance.

Pregnant women, caregivers of children under the age of 6, seniors and disabled people who participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are exempted.

The 20-hour work requirement can be waived by obtaining employment, taking part in community service or participating in a job training program.

Organizations and Democrats are slamming Susana Martinez for the proposed job search changes, claiming that she is making it even harder for people living in poverty to put food on their tables.

I think you answered your own question....

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

So should ALL politicians....along with some after lunch. breath alcohol testing. Although, I think the past work history of the welfare recipients. should be the gauge as to whom is tested. Profiling is a good way to start. If a person has been on it their whole life, they get tested. If they had to go on it, because they've worked their whole life, then ran their unemployment dry, then no. If someone is actively searching for a job, then they most likely won't be using drugs, if they're a welfare slug, then the first time they show a positive result, revocation of benefits and forced labor. The streets are dirty, they need sweeping, ditches need digging, sewers need cleaning.

 

[Jagger69]

Welfare recipients should be drug tested as well.

Why? What business is it of the government's what I do in the privacy of my own home on my own time?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Why? What business is it of the government's what I do in the privacy of my own home on my own time?

With my money. Sure it is. If I have to endure a drug test to get the job that pays for the people on welfare to live their sedentary lifestyle, why shouldn't they have to get drug tested to get the money I earned?

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

With my money. Sure it is. If I have to endure a drug test to get the job that pays for the people on welfare to live their sedentary lifestyle, why shouldn't they have to get drug tested to get the money I earned?

Here is the question; why is your employer allowed to drug test you at all???
Seems like a big brother socialist kind of thing to me one would think you righties would scream to high hell about such things????
Hmmmmmmm

 

[bobjustbob]

Here is the question; why is your employer allowed to drug test you at all???
Seems like a big brother socialist kind of thing to me one would think you righties would scream to high hell about such things????
Hmmmmmmm

Many jobs require you to operate equipment or company vehicles. Climb ladders or have some sort of potential hazards attached to them. Even if you travel in your own car and it is on company time they have some liability if you get into an accident. It's a safety issue.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

http://www.walmart.com/ip/First-Check-Home-Drug-Test-1ct/10324995

 

[Jagger69]

With my money. Sure it is. If I have to endure a drug test to get the job that pays for the people on welfare to live their sedentary lifestyle, why shouldn't they have to get drug tested to get the money I earned?

I don't agree with random drug testing by employers either but at least I'm not paying for it. As Johan intimated, why stop with drugs? Why not alcohol, gambling, addiction to video games, etc? Giving the government a carte blanche power to see what is in my bloodstream or urine without probable cause is a clear violation of the 4th amendment (you are a believer in protecting the constitution, no?). Interesting that social conservatives don't want to pay a cent to help feed someone but would gladly spend billions to find out if they are doing drugs.

Many jobs require you to operate equipment or company vehicles. Climb ladders or have some sort of potential hazards attached to them. Even if you travel in your own car and it is on company time they have some liability if you get into an accident. It's a safety issue.

If it is a pre-employment requirement or there is probable cause, I still don't like it but I understand the rationale behind it with the types of jobs you describe. However, many companies have a random policy that can require you to piss in a cup on demand for no reason other than they want you to. In my view, this is a clear violation of my civil liberties and I am 100% opposed to it.

 

[Rey C.]

So what happens if a person really can't get a job that meets the requirement? This seems pretty stupid and shortsighted. There almost isn't a "job training" program in the country that isn't a joke and is really job training. "Job training" to me means you actually teach vocational programs that train people do the actual work where people get licensed to do a job that will dramatically increase the chances to get hired. Telling them to create a resume or giving somebody short common sense advice isn't "job training".

Community service implies that somebody that doesn't have a job and is so poor they struggle to buy food has total and reliable transportation to get to the "community service". Nobody sees problems with that? Does this mean that people doing "community service" are also essentially taking a actual job away from somebody that community would actually have to pay for to get done? Seem kind of counterproductive since this isn't a punishment, and probably isn't stuff nobody else would do if they were paid for it by an employer.

While I'm sure there are exceptions and some people work to the best of their abilities to get off assistance and move forward, what we have now is a system that simply allows people to sit and wait for their check or stamp card to arrive, with absolutely no requirement that they do anything at all. IMO, we're "helping them to death." Are all job training programs worthwhile? No, of course not. But as an example, in my county, a wealthy donor established a scholarship program several years ago which provided full tuition and free books to any high school graduate from this county, who wanted to attend our community college. The initiative wasn't a total flop, but it was rather shocking how few local high school students took advantage of that opportunity, yet spent the next two years of their lives doing nothing but working low wage, entry-level jobs and making no meaningful progress through life. And more than a few of the girls in that group wound up having (or already had) babies... that they couldn't afford to take care of. In my view, it's very difficult, if not impossible, to help people who won't help themselves.

If that state really feels this way you know what a non-dumb-ass solution would be. For the state to almost completely eliminate food benefits except for a few limited circumstances, BUT to also create and guarantee citizens that don’t have one a decent, safe, reasonable, living wage (actual living wage, not surviving wage) job they could reasonably get to, even if that meant the state had to create the jobs themselves just for that purpose. That would be fair. People that are poor need a job and money and some actual legitimate hope. I'm sure all those poor people are going to be so thrilled that a lot of people are so eager to give them that great self worth and esteem instead of, you know, actually fucking helping them in a meaningful way. (Which would be the actual thing to get them esteem, but that's to hard and would require actual sacrifice on the part of people.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't believe the state should be in the business of making life guarantees to people. The "state" is just us... the taxpayers. And I don't believe it's harsh for me to have no desire to make certain that everyone is able to maintain a certain lifestyle or income level. If I make a bad business decision and wind up going bankrupt, no one has an obligation to rescue me. No one, certainly not the state, has an obligation to rush in and give me a decent place to live while my house gets sold on the courthouse steps. I have no issue at all with providing cradle to grave assistance to people who are (actually) disabled or handicapped, have serious emotional or mental issues or the elderly. But no, young, able-bodied people *must* accept that life is not fair, the world is full of risks and dangers and each and every bad decision one makes may lead to a life of toil and hardship. One or two bad decisions shouldn't condemn a person for life. But the longer it goes on and the more serious the bad decisions, it is likely that they'll have a harder time breaking out of that spiral. So I do believe the state, or society in general, should do a better job of providing educational opportunities and making sure that domestic companies get absolutely NO benefit from moving overseas or hiring foreign guest workers or illegal aliens. I would spend less on prisons and more on schools. But if someone wants to join a gang, smoke dope, play video games all day, commit crimes, have illegitimate babies, etc., etc., rather than go to school... I don't feel that the state or society should offer them anything at all.

 

[Johan]

Many jobs require you to operate equipment or company vehicles. Climb ladders or have some sort of potential hazards attached to them. Even if you travel in your own car and it is on company time they have some liability if you get into an accident. It's a safety issue.

But there will be tests AFTER the accident and if these tests are positive, the company could use them against you

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

It all falls to less freedoms and more control. The constitution is extremely hard to work around but controlling you thru the company you work for does not fall under the constitutions control.

 

[bobjustbob]

But there will be tests AFTER the accident and if these tests are positive, the company could use them against you

Yes, that is the reason they test and those are the randoms that they do. They don't pick people at random like in sports. They will only do it for a probable cause because it costs much more than that $20 test kit Ace showed. I know first hand. I had an accident with my forklift. I was called a cab to be taken to the hospital emergency room. They tested me for drugs and alcohol with a piss test and mouth swab. I had to wait for the results. This was on a night that there was a Dave Mathews concert in town. The cops were dragging in kids that were so drunk and high that they were sick. About 12-15 of them. My waiting area had 8 beds but they could not bring any of these kids in with me because might taint my tests. They just put them on gurneys in the hall.

After the tests came back negative I had to wait for the same cab company to take me back to work. Why I couldn't get a ride back with another cab company or have someone from work come pick me up I don't know. This was the company procedure. The cab company only had 2 cars running that night and they were both running people home from the concert. I waited 3 more hours till they came and took me back to work. All together from the time of my accident till I got back to work it was 8 1/2 hours. All paid to me on the clock with half of that at overtime pay. The hospital mistakenly sent me the bill. $1300 if I had a plan or $700 if I wanted to pay cash. Naturally I passed that bill over to the company but overall it was a very expensive proposition to give me that test. So if there is anyone out there that thinks companies want to watch everyone's urine for shits and giggles then you are dead wrong. Way too expensive. If I were to test positive then they would have every right to fire me. Who needs drunks and people high operating their equipment.

Are there jobs that shouldn't require drug testing? Sure. but not many. To have government monitor our lives through piss testing is an invasion. But if you are collecting assistance because you can't pass a piss test for a job then your problem becomes my problem.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

But there will be tests AFTER the accident and if these tests are positive, the company could use them against you

Many companies, and jobs require pre employment, and random testing. I'm subject to random testing because I drive a truck. My company is required to test me, and the State Troopers can test me, if they choose, for no other reason then they want to. For the operators of commercial vehicles, the law requires, pre employment, random, post accident, and return to service. They are also allowed reasonable suspicion.