Disability is not 'gibs' though.
This shit is really revealing to me how many grown, and able-bodied adults simply refuse to work.I am well aware people fall on hard times or might be disabled(Benefits are fine in these cases in my opinion) But seeing a couple of able-bodied adults seething cause they cannot buy Oreos with tax money is disheartening
Heaven forbid we look at what's going on with the VA benefits or Social Security. You'd get decapitated cause you dare look at fraud there.
That second video especially. There's no love lost between me and Globocorps, but "let's make all these companies go bankrupt"? Walmart's net income last year was close to $20 billion and they "only" paid out about $7 billion in dividends. There is no way a load of looting could make them go bankrupt. They do, however, have the money to completely redesign their stores to make it counter service only.... or even make it so that you've got to order in advance to collect groceries/get them delivered. In that scenario those "self checkout assistants" will be out of a job.
Not to mention they might just exit areas where there's a lot of looting because it's hurting their margins in those stores and only have locations too far away for you to reasonably get to. Then where are you getting food? Looting the little Mom and Pop joints? They
will go bankrupt, and then you'll
really be in a food desert. The food pantries will be picked dry. So then you'd basically be relying on what, FEMA distributing ration packs in the inner cities? Nothing about the current administration suggests they'd facilitate that.
I will add this because Null (shockingly) is wrong about this aspect of EBT/welfare
You do have to work if you are able to
Welfare itself has been reformed twice specifically with the fear of hambone squatters in mind, first under
Clinton and then again by
George W. Bush. We can argue whether what is supplied is to much but strictly in terms of work, it works
So stop with dead boomer ass narratives
Note the exemptions to being "able to". To me it reads like if you've got dependents under the age of 18 (but over 6), you're exempt from ABAWD and subject only to the general requirements of working 30 hours a week and, if you're not, participating in some sort of work program. This includes job searches.
Looking at this page from New Hampshire, for example:
Contact with your employment counselor is required on a monthly basis... while we encourage participants who are job searching to make approximately six contacts per week, we do not require evidence of your job searching actions at this time.
So to be eligible for SNAP in New Hampshire, if you've got a kid under 18 then you just need to tell a government worker once a month "yeah I applied for 24 jobs this month but didn't get any offers" with no proof of having done that. It will obviously vary by state.
ABAWD is more restrictive as it requires "participation in a work program at least 80 hours a month. A work program could be SNAP Employment and Training or another federal, state, or local work program".
CalFresh seems to suggest registering for work (and accepting job offers) meets the requirements, and you can't quit a job, but if you're just so shit at it you get fired (or I guess, if you just don't turn up for work) then as long as you're registered for work it might be permitted? And that's without getting into the various ways someone may be able to get themselves classified as disabled.
Regardless, the sheer number of videos in this thread indicate there's a lot of gaming the system going on.
