Entitlement Question

[scotchtiger]

The article below popped up on my phone just now. It’s clearly slanted a certain direction, but there are a few policy changes I’d like the board to weigh in on. The article thinks these are bad because some people may lose eligibility for food stamps, but they seem exceedingly logical.

1. Raising the age limit for work requirements for adults without dependents from 50 to 56. I honestly don’t understand the issue here. Why on earth should a 52 year old with no kids in the house NOT be required to work in order to receive free stuff from the government? That makes zero sense.
2. Currently, adults 18-49 with a minor dependent in the house (<18) are excused from work requirements. The proposal is to change the age from 17 to 7. Again, why would perfectly capable adults, who have children in FULL TIME SCHOOL, not have to work 20 hours per week. My 1st grade is in school 7.25 hours per day not counting after school. That’s 36 hours you could be working, or shit, work the minimum 20 and screw around for 16 hours a week.

Some of the resident bleeding hearts are going to have to help me understand the objection here. Because these seem super reasonable.


Excerpt:

McCarthy’s plan, which includes $4.5 trillion in spending cuts, would raise the age limit for SNAP’s work requirements for “abled bodies individuals” without dependents from 50 to 56. Such a change, if signed into law, could affect nearly 1 million Americans ages 50 to 55, the nonpartisan research and policy institute Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.


Currently, people 18 through 49 who don’t have children are required to work or participate in a work program for at least 20 hours a week to receive benefits through SNAP unless they qualify for exemptions. Those who don’t meet the minimum work hours requirement are limited up to three months of benefits every three years.


Households with dependents 17 and younger are among those excused from SNAP’s work requirements and three-month time limit. But such an exemption is also at risk of being eliminated.


More: 23 Republicans want to make it harder to get SNAP benefits. Here's how.


Nearly two dozen House Republicans co-sponsored legislation in March that would impose stricter work requirements for able-bodied adults without children, making it harder for some Americans to receive food stamps.


The bill, led by South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, would narrow a work requirement exemption for households with children, allowing only those with children under 7 to qualify instead of the current cutoff of 18. The legislation also would raise the maximum age like in the debt limit plan, but from 49 to 65 – a more drastic increase than McCarthy’s plan.

 

[yoshi121374]

The article below popped up on my phone just now. It’s clearly slanted a certain direction, but there are a few policy changes I’d like the board to weigh in on. The article thinks these are bad because some people may lose eligibility for food stamps, but they seem exceedingly logical.

1. Raising the age limit for work requirements for adults without dependents from 50 to 56. I honestly don’t understand the issue here. Why on earth should a 52 year old with no kids in the house NOT be required to work in order to receive free stuff from the government? That makes zero sense.
2. Currently, adults 18-49 with a minor dependent in the house (<18) are excused from work requirements. The proposal is to change the age from 17 to 7. Again, why would perfectly capable adults, who have children in FULL TIME SCHOOL, not have to work 20 hours per week. My 1st grade is in school 7.25 hours per day not counting after school. That’s 36 hours you could be working, or shit, work the minimum 20 and screw around for 16 hours a week.

Some of the resident bleeding hearts are going to have to help me understand the objection here. Because these seem super reasonable.


Excerpt:

McCarthy’s plan, which includes $4.5 trillion in spending cuts, would raise the age limit for SNAP’s work requirements for “abled bodies individuals” without dependents from 50 to 56. Such a change, if signed into law, could affect nearly 1 million Americans ages 50 to 55, the nonpartisan research and policy institute Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.


Currently, people 18 through 49 who don’t have children are required to work or participate in a work program for at least 20 hours a week to receive benefits through SNAP unless they qualify for exemptions. Those who don’t meet the minimum work hours requirement are limited up to three months of benefits every three years.


Households with dependents 17 and younger are among those excused from SNAP’s work requirements and three-month time limit. But such an exemption is also at risk of being eliminated.


More: 23 Republicans want to make it harder to get SNAP benefits. Here's how.


Nearly two dozen House Republicans co-sponsored legislation in March that would impose stricter work requirements for able-bodied adults without children, making it harder for some Americans to receive food stamps.


The bill, led by South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, would narrow a work requirement exemption for households with children, allowing only those with children under 7 to qualify instead of the current cutoff of 18. The legislation also would raise the maximum age like in the debt limit plan, but from 49 to 65 – a more drastic increase than McCarthy’s plan.

I don't have an issue with much of this. As I have said many,many times, I'm pretty conservative fiscally. I'm not a big fan of the medicaid system and believe it currently leads to a lot of Toxic Charity.

This is a long story, but here it is:

My wife is in charge of the Christmas donation/charity for needy parents for her school. Her school historically had worked with some local churches who would do "angel trees" and provide Christmas for those families. Over time,they began to notice that people were becoming reliant on this to provide Christmas for the kids, and it was not seen as something to be grateful for, but rather, something that was owed.

My wife began to work with the Dream Center in Easley. They changed the system to require parents to attend classes to earn credits that they could use to purchase gifts through the Dream Center. This is much better in that people are actually earning the gifts, they were taking classes in parenting,household finances, crafts, DIY hone improvement etc. There was some pushback from the parents,but they got in line and it was well received.

The crazy part was the reaction of the local churches. They were really pissed off that they no longer got "names" and instead were being asked to donate to the Drem Center. These churches withdrew their support, and literally changed districts that they worked with because they wanted to get that "feeling of doing something special" for a child.

There is a lot of issues baked into charity. I love helping people, I realize that I have been very blessed with good parents,good education, and luckily smart decisions. I want more people to have the chances that I have had. I am all about a helping hand to lift someone up, our current situation is not doing that unfortunately.

 

[hopefultiger13]

I have zero problems with folks working to earn their keep.

I have noticed though, that bills like these are long on generalities and short on details that actually make them work. My kid's school runs from 8:30 - 3:30 (roughly). My wife's and my work is flexible enough to make that work for me, but for someone that's working a blue collar 8-5 job, that doesn't wash.

The ole "my kid gets home from school at 4" isn't going to excuse you from that hour of work... and what kind of job offers 6.5 hours of work daily when they want people working 8+

 

[hopefultiger13]

I don't have an issue with much of this. As I have said many,many times, I'm pretty conservative fiscally. I'm not a big fan of the medicaid system and believe it currently leads to a lot of Toxic Charity.

This is a long story, but here it is:

My wife is in charge of the Christmas donation/charity for needy parents for her school. Her school historically had worked with some local churches who would do "angel trees" and provide Christmas for those families. Over time,they began to notice that people were becoming reliant on this to provide Christmas for the kids, and it was not seen as something to be grateful for, but rather, something that was owed.

My wife began to work with the Dream Center in Easley. They changed the system to require parents to attend classes to earn credits that they could use to purchase gifts through the Dream Center. This is much better in that people are actually earning the gifts, they were taking classes in parenting,household finances, crafts, DIY hone improvement etc. There was some pushback from the parents,but they got in line and it was well received.

The crazy part was the reaction of the local churches. They were really pissed off that they no longer got "names" and instead were being asked to donate to the Drem Center. These churches withdrew their support, and literally changed districts that they worked with because they wanted to get that "feeling of doing something special" for a child.

There is a lot of issues baked into charity. I love helping people, I realize that I have been very blessed with good parents,good education, and luckily smart decisions. I want more people to have the chances that I have had. I am all about a helping hand to lift someone up, our current situation is not doing that unfortunately.

Good points here for sure. The real problem is back to the old saying "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a lifetime." Nice words and very true... BUT the problem is that it's a hell of a lot easier to drop a fish off than it is to take that time to teach... Lot's cheaper too.

So we as a country have been MUCH more willing to pay people just enough to get by rather than investing heavily in that person to get the training and skills needed to support themselves.

There's a pretty cool theory that applies here called Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs Theory

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory in psychology comprising a five-tier model of human needs, often depicted as hierarchical levels within a pyramid.

www.simplypsychology.org

From an educational perspective (ie the above learning the training and skills needed to support oneself well), the first two layers need to be met BEFORE effective learning can be achieved. That's not easy or cheap.

 

[dbjork6317]

I have zero problems with folks working to earn their keep.

I have noticed though, that bills like these are long on generalities and short on details that actually make them work. My kid's school runs from 8:30 - 3:30 (roughly). My wife's and my work is flexible enough to make that work for me, but for someone that's working a blue collar 8-5 job, that doesn't wash.

The ole "my kid gets home from school at 4" isn't going to excuse you from that hour of work... and what kind of job offers 6.5 hours of work daily when they want people working 8+

Yeah I’d say this is the primary issue. There’s a mismatch between the generalities of the legislation and the reality of the situation for many low income Americans. There aren’t enough workers protections in the private sector to match up with stricter federal regulations around work requirements.

Believe it or not, finding a job that gives you flexibility to work part time and be off exactly when you need to be to pick up your kids can be more difficult than you’d think. And in many cases, the cost of child care is more than what someone would make if they could find such a job.

As a general rule, I don’t have a problem with these changes - although I’d argue 7 years old is too young for the shift in the dependent age.

But I also think it doesn’t take into account the realities and specific situations for a lot of Americans, and it’s not a surprise that a Republican with a 6 figure salary can’t possibly fathom a scenario where other people might be in different situations.

 

[firegiver]

You can't move the 17 to 7. Because in reality you can leave a 17 year old at home alone. You can't leave a 7 year old. The rest I don't have much a problem with. But do you all realize how poor you gotta be to be on snap anyways?

 

[scotchtiger]

Keep in mind that the threshold is 20 hours per week, not 40. That's 4 hours per day. Or longer with the ability to take a day off with the kid if they're home sick.

7 year old is in full time school. What do you do all day when the kid is in school if you don't work?

I could see an exception for months where school isn't in session. For example, work requirement doesn't apply during June/July/August or something. That's definitely harder for parents.

 

[scotchtiger]

But I also think it doesn’t take into account the realities and specific situations for a lot of Americans, and it’s not a surprise that a Republican with a 6 figure salary can’t possibly fathom a scenario where other people might be in different situations.

I completely understand how other people might be in different situations. Likely very, very different situations.

I do not understand how you can work or volunteer zero hours per week if you have no dependents in the house or have kids in full time school, yet expect your fellow Americans to give you their hard-earned tax dollars.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Keep in mind that the threshold is 20 hours per week, not 40. That's 4 hours per day. Or longer with the ability to take a day off with the kid if they're home sick.

7 year old is in full time school. What do you do all day when the kid is in school if you don't work?

I could see an exception for months where school isn't in session. For example, worknharder for parents

Yep... I'm not downplaying the idea at all. And the key here (unlike so many previous plans) is that you still get the benefits while you work. Personally, I'd think that 20 hours a week at the local tech school to learn a skill might be better than 20 hours a week in the drive through. But yeah... This seems like a great idea... just the details need to be ironed out.

 

[Clemson Goat]

My brother in-law is on SSI disability. He only draws 917 per month . He started drawing SSI approximately 3 years years ago plus 197.00 in snap benefits . Beginning of 2023 his snap was cut to 97.00 per month . Last month his SSI was cut by 284.00 per month due to us owning a piece of property which we let him live on it free of charge in exchange of him taking care of our goats and other small chores. He lives in a 16 x 16 storage building made into a tiny house which he owns.
SS office said he was receiving a 300.00 per month benefit from us . He pays for his water, power , and gas (propane) and groceries. We appealed the 284.00 cut but at this time he has not heard anything.

 

[hopefultiger13]

I completely understand how other people might be in different situations. Likely very, very different situations.

I do not understand how you can work or volunteer zero hours per week if you have no dependents in the house or have kids in full time school, yet expect your fellow Americans to give you their hard-earned tax dollars.

I've been arguing for the liberal side in this thread a bit, so I'll go in on the other side as well. While I do believe that a society does owe it to themselves to take care of kids, old folks and folks that can't take care of themselves. I admit that I've little patience for people who won't work. If nothing else, you could live in a barrack style of housing and sweep the streets and pick up trash if nothing else... IE you need to turn it x many bags of trash to get your meal and warm bed.

 

[yoshi121374]

I've been arguing for the liberal side in this thread a bit, so I'll go in on the other side as well. While I do believe that a society does owe it to themselves to take care of kids, old folks and folks that can't take care of themselves. I admit that I've little patience for people who won't work. If nothing else, you could live in a barrack style of housing and sweep the streets and pick up trash if nothing else... IE you need to turn it x many bags of trash to get your meal and warm bed.

This is basically where I am. I would like to see some sort of social work/ Americorps type deal if you want benefits and are able to work. Provide some value for the investment that we are making to you.

 

[hopefultiger13]

My brother in-law is on SSI disability. He only draws 917 per month . He started drawing SSI approximately 3 years years ago plus 197.00 in snap benefits . Beginning of 2023 his snap was cut to 97.00 per month . Last month his SSI was cut by 284.00 per month due to us owning a piece of property which we let him live on it free of charge in exchange of him taking care of our goats and other small chores. He lives in a 16 x 16 storage building made into a tiny house which he owns.
SS office said he was receiving a 300.00 per month benefit from us . He pays for his water, power , and gas (propane) and groceries. We appealed the 284.00 cut but at this time he has not heard anything.

This is CRAZY. This guy doesn't have any money at all. And the situation he's in actually encourages him to NOT do anything (ie he gets cut any time he improves his situation).

 

[hopefultiger13]

This is basically where I am. I would like to see some sort of social work/ Americorps type deal if you want benefits and are able to work. Provide some value for the investment that we are making to you.

Be careful man... You'll be a communist freak if you aren't careful.

 

[scotchtiger]

This is basically where I am. I would like to see some sort of social work/ Americorps type deal if you want benefits and are able to work. Provide some value for the investment that we are making to you.

I'm even fine with that. Provide real value with your time. High impact volunteering, job training (for a limited duration), etc. But absolutely nobody should get a nickel if they aren't willing to do something.

It seems most here are completely aligned. So why did I read an article this morning besmirching Republican attempts to rectify this misalignment and scoffing at the very concept of actually requiring a little effort in order to receive free benefits from taxpayer pockets?

 

[Clemson Goat]

This is CRAZY. This guy doesn't have any money at all. And the situation he's in actually encourages him to NOT do anything (ie he gets cut any time he improves his situation).

He can't work due to 2 operations on his right shoulder. He can not raise his right hand / arm above waist high. Doctors gave him 100% disability on his shoulder. Left foot operated on with screws Doctors rated this 60% disability. Back issues were rated at 40% . He is 60 years old.

 

[hopefultiger13]

He can't work due to 2 operations on his right shoulder. He can not raise his right hand / arm above waist high. Doctors gave him 100% disability on his shoulder. Left foot operated on with screws Doctors rated this 60% disability. Back issues were rated at 40% . He is 60 years old.

BUT he's TRYING to do something. And when he does, he gets penalized by having his benefits cut. That's my point... the system practically forces him not to try and support himself.

 

[nytigerfan]

The article below popped up on my phone just now. It’s clearly slanted a certain direction, but there are a few policy changes I’d like the board to weigh in on. The article thinks these are bad because some people may lose eligibility for food stamps, but they seem exceedingly logical.

1. Raising the age limit for work requirements for adults without dependents from 50 to 56. I honestly don’t understand the issue here. Why on earth should a 52 year old with no kids in the house NOT be required to work in order to receive free stuff from the government? That makes zero sense.
2. Currently, adults 18-49 with a minor dependent in the house (<18) are excused from work requirements. The proposal is to change the age from 17 to 7. Again, why would perfectly capable adults, who have children in FULL TIME SCHOOL, not have to work 20 hours per week. My 1st grade is in school 7.25 hours per day not counting after school. That’s 36 hours you could be working, or shit, work the minimum 20 and screw around for 16 hours a week.

Some of the resident bleeding hearts are going to have to help me understand the objection here. Because these seem super reasonable.


Excerpt:

McCarthy’s plan, which includes $4.5 trillion in spending cuts, would raise the age limit for SNAP’s work requirements for “abled bodies individuals” without dependents from 50 to 56. Such a change, if signed into law, could affect nearly 1 million Americans ages 50 to 55, the nonpartisan research and policy institute Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates.


Currently, people 18 through 49 who don’t have children are required to work or participate in a work program for at least 20 hours a week to receive benefits through SNAP unless they qualify for exemptions. Those who don’t meet the minimum work hours requirement are limited up to three months of benefits every three years.


Households with dependents 17 and younger are among those excused from SNAP’s work requirements and three-month time limit. But such an exemption is also at risk of being eliminated.


More: 23 Republicans want to make it harder to get SNAP benefits. Here's how.


Nearly two dozen House Republicans co-sponsored legislation in March that would impose stricter work requirements for able-bodied adults without children, making it harder for some Americans to receive food stamps.


The bill, led by South Dakota Rep. Dusty Johnson, would narrow a work requirement exemption for households with children, allowing only those with children under 7 to qualify instead of the current cutoff of 18. The legislation also would raise the maximum age like in the debt limit plan, but from 49 to 65 – a more drastic increase than McCarthy’s plan.

I have no problem with this. I do have a problem with a lot of the other stuff in mccarthy's debt ceiling hostage negotiation plan. They should not be using the debt ceiling to try and force it through.

But sure, put the above in a bill specific to SNAP and I will support it 100%.

 

[dbjork6317]

I completely understand how other people might be in different situations. Likely very, very different situations.

I do not understand how you can work or volunteer zero hours per week if you have no dependents in the house or have kids in full time school, yet expect your fellow Americans to give you their hard-earned tax dollars.

Do you really not see how these two paragraphs are in direct contrast with each other?

 

[CUT93]

I have zero problem with this. What we need to do to solve part of the child care problem is to quit encouraging people to have children they can not afford.
If you are receiving govt benefits to support your family, you should not be able to receive additional benefits for bringing more children into a situation where they are disadvantaged and not properly supported. This would reduce the number of kids who have the deck stacked against them from day one and are often in bad home situations.

 

[yoshi121374]

I have zero problem with this. What we need to do to solve part of the child care problem is to quit encouraging people to have children they can not afford.
If you are receiving govt benefits to support your family, you should not be able to receive additional benefits for bringing more children into a situation where they are disadvantaged and not properly supported. This would reduce the number of kids who have the deck stacked against them from day one and are often in bad home situations.

It's sort of a chicken or egg situation here.

It's tough all around.

 

[CUT93]

It's sort of a chicken or egg situation here.

It's tough all around.

Birth control can solve that problem.

 

[yoshi121374]

Birth control can solve that problem.

Tell the Republicans that....

 

[CUT93]

Tell the Republicans that....

Not real sure pubs would be the ones with a problem to what I would suggest. I am not talking about abortions- mandatory birth control for those on govt assistance. If you can't support yourself, you should not be bringing children into the world in that environment.

 

[WapPride]

I have a hard time justifying forced birth control on people in the so called “land of the free.”

That’s some Handsmaid Tale shit if I’ve ever heard it - “only these types of people are allowed to have children!”

 

[CUT93]

I have a hard time justifying forced birth control on people in the so called “land of the free.”

That’s some Handsmaid Tale shit if I’ve ever heard it - “only these types of people are allowed to have children!”

It would not be forced on anyone. It would simply have to be agreed to if you want the govt to continue to take my money and give it to you. If you don't want the $$$, you don't have to take birth control.

Did you have problem with the govt forcing people to take an unproven vaccine, with unknown side effects simply to be employed? - "only these people are allowed to have jobs!"
Did you object to forcing kids who had almost 0% chance of death or hospitalization to be forced to take a vaccine - "only these people are allowed to go to school!"

 

[WapPride]

It would not be forced on anyone. It would simply have to be agreed to if you want the govt to continue to take my money and give it to you. If you don't want the $$$, you don't have to take birth control.

Did you have problem with the govt forcing people to take an unproven vaccine, with unknown side effects simply to be employed? - "only these people are allowed to have jobs!"
Did you object to forcing kids who had almost 0% chance of death or hospitalization to be forced to take a vaccine - "only these people are allowed to go to school!"

Yawn with your COVID nonsense. The government didn’t force anyone to take a vaccine, and no, I don’t have an issue with the children getting the vaccine either. Though, I’m also not a loon who thinks the vaccine is a major problem.

 

[WapPride]

Why are right wingers so thirsty for authoritarian rule? Shit blows my mind

 

[CUT93]

Why are right wingers so thirsty for authoritarian rule? Shit blows my mind

If you are referring to me, I would much rather people not take my $$ from me and do whatever they want to in that scenario.

 

[CUT93]

Yawn with your COVID nonsense. The government didn’t force anyone to take a vaccine, and no, I don’t have an issue with the children getting the vaccine either. Though, I’m also not a loon who thinks the vaccine is a major problem.

You are correct. You only had to take the vax if you wanted to keep your job or go to school.

 

[Jjh7]

Why are right wingers so thirsty for authoritarian rule? Shit blows my mind

pretty sure you'd find a way to drown in a desert

 

[WapPride]

You are correct. You only had to take the vax if you wanted to keep your job or go to school.

My job didn't force me into taking the COVID vaccine, nor did anyone I know irl personally. All kinds of vaccines are required to go to school, requiring another one in hopes of curbing a global pandemic (that's shown to have no long term effects as of yet in children.) I don't really care to get into another argument about the COVID vaccine though, so have a nice day.

pretty sure you'd find a way to drown in a desert

Wonderful input, as usual.

 

[Clemson Goat]

Yawn with your COVID nonsense. The government didn’t force anyone to take a vaccine, and no, I don’t have an issue with the children getting the vaccine either. Though, I’m also not a loon who thinks the vaccine is a major problem.

Calling Bullshit.... Some people were required to take the jab or find another job . I took the first two shots and 1 booster. After taking the booster I started having a health issue. My mother in-law took the first two jabs then a booster and then a year later on a Monday morning she took her 2nd booster and next morning she was admitted to the hospital with a light heart attack. Now she is on a heart med.

.

More workers are facing mandatory Covid vaccination or no job

The question of one's vaccination status is becoming increasingly relevant and, in an increasing number of cases, a condition of employment.

www.cnbc.com

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/how-many-employees-have-hospitals-lost-to-vaccine-mandates-numbers-so-far

 

[nytigerfan]

It would not be forced on anyone. It would simply have to be agreed to if you want the govt to continue to take my money and give it to you. If you don't want the $$$, you don't have to take birth control.

Did you have problem with the govt forcing people to take an unproven vaccine, with unknown side effects simply to be employed? - "only these people are allowed to have jobs!"
Did you object to forcing kids who had almost 0% chance of death or hospitalization to be forced to take a vaccine - "only these people are allowed to go to school!"

DC was the only place where students were mandated to take the vaccine.

Any employer, whether private or government, has the right to mandate vaccines if they feel non-vaccinated people pose a threat to the workplace.

I am guessing you have never been laid, so you are not too keen on how birth control works. But how exactly would you enforce your plan to mandate birth control on people receiving snap benefits? The same way you are going to check little kids' genitalia before they compete in a sport?

You are one sick dude.

 

[CUT93]

My job didn't force me into taking the COVID vaccine, nor did anyone I know irl personally. All kinds of vaccines are required to go to school, requiring another one in hopes of curbing a global pandemic (that's shown to have no long term effects as of yet in children.) I don't really care to get into another argument about the COVID vaccine though, so have a nice day.


Wonderful input, as usual.

I did not say your job. However, govt jobs and military personnel were required to do so. So were children who had minimal risk, at best, from the virus.

 

[iceheart08]

@scotchtiger , here an alternative viewpoint. Work requirements don't solve any problems. It's not true to suggest that assistance breeds laziness, in fact, a number of studies show an increase in market based work among welfare recipients without an associated work requirement.

Most participants are already working or are exempt and the requirement doesn't increase earnings or participation in work meaningfully.

These requirements increase the administrative burden and cost on government AND private citizens.

The only real and proven outcome of work requirements is a dramatic reduction in the use of assistance programs, and often by people who need them.

So what problem are we trying to solve? And does this policy solve that problem? The answer seems to be no in both cases, and instead this policy is designed to make conservatives "feel better" about poors taking their money.

 

[CUT93]

DC was the only place where students were mandated to take the vaccine.

Any employer, whether private or government, has the right to mandate vaccines if they feel non-vaccinated people pose a threat to the workplace.

I am guessing you have never been laid, so you are not too keen on how birth control works. But how exactly would you enforce your plan to mandate birth control on people receiving snap benefits? The same way you are going to check little kids' genitalia before they compete in a sport?

You are one sick dude.

These were the first three I saw. As usual, your lies are easily exposed.

More than 200 public US colleges are requiring COVID vaccines. In SC, that’s illegal.

Wofford College and Furman University are the only colleges in South Carolina mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for students enrolling for fall classes. For

www.furman.edu

COVID-19 Vaccination Requirement for Students and Staff - Sacramento City Unified School District

In a Special Board of Education Meeting last night, the Sacramento City Unified School District took action to require ...

www.scusd.edu

I am pretty sure I understand birth control. I am fairly certain there are shots, implants, etc. that can be administered by a doctor to do this.

 

[yoshi121374]

Calling Bullshit.... Some people were required to take the jab or find another job . I took the first two shots and 1 booster. After taking the booster I started having a health issue. My mother in-law took the first two jabs then a booster and then a year later on a Monday morning she took her 2nd booster and next morning she was admitted to the hospital with a light heart attack. Now she is on a heart med.

View embedded media

.

More workers are facing mandatory Covid vaccination or no job

The question of one's vaccination status is becoming increasingly relevant and, in an increasing number of cases, a condition of employment.

www.cnbc.com

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/hospitals/how-many-employees-have-hospitals-lost-to-vaccine-mandates-numbers-so-far

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

Those issues you mention could just have easily been caused by having Covid since those are very common symptoms of long haul Covid.

 

[DW4_2016]

If you are referring to me, I would much rather people not take my $$ from me and do whatever they want to in that scenario.

and then die without food? i mean it's not like they have to have food, right?

god bless america

 

[PAWrocka]

My job didn't force me into taking the COVID vaccine, nor did anyone I know irl personally. All kinds of vaccines are required to go to school, requiring another one in hopes of curbing a global pandemic (that's shown to have no long term effects as of yet in children.) I don't really care to get into another argument about the COVID vaccine though, so have a nice day.


Wonderful input, as usual.

My job did, and it was because the Feds made them. If a company(Raytheon in this case) had Government contracts, they were forced to mandate the vaccine for their US Based employees.

Now ... sure ... I couldve elected to not get the vaccine but I wouldve been terminated. Soooooooo the choice was voluntary termination, giving up 21 years of employment, and my livelihood OR take the vaccine?

I dont really believe all the nefarious things that are said about the vaccine (i.e Gateway Pundit stuff), but we were told, at least initially, that the vaccine would prevent us from getting Covid and prevent us from spreading it. Its pretty conclusive that was a lie ... well ... maybe not a "lie", but at least incorrect.

I went ahead and got the vaccine of course, but I still viewed it as a gross overreach by the Government. I wont be getting any future boosters nor will my children get this vaccine. We have all had Covid now (wife and I double vaxed and boosted, still got it. Unvaxxed kids got it, had the sniffles for 3 days), so I just dont see the benefit in it any longer and never saw the benefit in it for children.

BUT ... on topic ... a lot of good discussion here for a change and by God ... it sounds like most people here agree or mostly agree.

I too think the change from 17 to 7 is way to drastic, I think a drop to 12 or 13 is more realistic. I absolutely agree with @yoshi121374 and @dbjork6317 that finding employment, part time, that allows flexibility is a tough ask. Like others have said here though, if youre able bodied ... you at least have to show you are trying especially if you dont have dependents.


Also .... I get the suggestion of "mandatory birth control", I do ... and dare I say that sounds like a "good idea" in theory, but ... in practice???? Thats some scary shit and ... even though "I get it" .... I wouldnt support it. Its like Communism, sounds great in theory .... perfect utopia where everyone has what they need and they live in harmony????? .... then you put it into practice and its just a f'n nightmare.


I just think there is a lot more we, society, could be doing ... proactively. I really think the first thing is to stop the lie of "work smarter not harder" which basically teaches our kids that they have to go to college to be successful. We keep giving more and more money to school districts so more and more administrators can be hired, meanwhile not hiring more teachers or funding more vocational programs that would benefit kids whose path is different than going to college. Everyone should have the opportunity to go to college, but not everyone should. A lot of these blue collar careers, are tough, but pay very well and are recession and AI proof.

We have to break the cycle of generational welfare, that encourages lack of skill development, lack of effort, and having kids out of wedlock. Unfortunately, none of that is easy and would require calm heads, sacrifice, negotiations, and compromise soooooooooooooooooooooooooo here we are.