Latest Breaking News

rubberducky

(2,405 posts)

106. Perhaps, I should have explained my reasoning better.

Wed Jan 11, 2012, 09:44 AM

Jan 2012

You see many people only need assistance for a little while and I don`t believe they should be stripped of all thier worldly possesions while they are getting thier life together. I was in that position 30 years ago, My husband left my son and I. I had a nice home and a new car, but no money. My whole world had been turned upside down and my mind was overworked with questions about what do I do now. I felt like a beggar when I finally had to apply for assistence, but I did what I had to do. The state also set me up in little job traing program. I manged to get a job withina year and off of all help. I thank God that they didn`t let me fall into the pit of not having ANYTHING in order to apply. I at least had a reliable car to get me to classes and then to work.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

119 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Pennsylvania to impose asset test for food stamps [View all] kpete Jan 2012 OP

Du rec. Nt xchrom Jan 2012 #1

thanks xchrom kpete Jan 2012 #13

Let's asset test the morons who come up with these ideas. hobbit709 Jan 2012 #2

their money came from you and me barbtries Jan 2012 #10

But who else pays them something hobbit709 Jan 2012 #55

Sounds like a great way of ensuring people have to depend on assistance forever theAntiRand Jan 2012 #3

$2,000 is about enough for a couple root canals. n/t Ian David Jan 2012 #4

not if you need a crown to go with that root canal leftyohiolib Jan 2012 #18

I had two root canals last spring - they cost $1500 apiece dflprincess Jan 2012 #92

$2000 has been the FEDERAL limit for assets since the 1970s happyslug Jan 2012 #76

These morons keep telling poor people to save, yet... Odin2005 Jan 2012 #5

Oh, Odin2005 - they're telling everyone to save dflprincess Jan 2012 #94

dflprincess, you're supposed to do both! boppers Jan 2012 #113

*shakes head* Brigid Jan 2012 #118

Did we asset test the banksters before we bailed them out? I bet they had way more than $2,000. fasttense Jan 2012 #6

+99 Trillo Jan 2012 #7

We asset tested the *banks* before we bailed them out, yes. boppers Jan 2012 #112

To get benefits, the poor have to sell the rest of their stuff... sadbear Jan 2012 #8

Get your tin cans and start choosing your begging corners. graywarrior Jan 2012 #9

Way too low JPZenger Jan 2012 #11

My brother became disabled with a broken shoulder and all he got was food stamps Kolesar Jan 2012 #12

PA Penalizes Savings RobinA Jan 2012 #43

Maybe a time delay? Confusious Jan 2012 #80

Agree, horribly low. Most people here in the North East need that much in their account just to be harun Jan 2012 #38

That's what I thought, too Alcibiades Jan 2012 #65

I am afraid this country is beyond repair. sarcasmo Jan 2012 #14

I have been thinking the tomg Jan 2012 #31

+1,000 n/t LarryNM Jan 2012 #90

Me too. nt snappyturtle Jan 2012 #100

Me three. n/t cutlassmama Jan 2012 #111

The rich people just HATE anyone in need of help actually getting help. Atman Jan 2012 #15

I have experience in 3 states, and they ALWAYS count cash and cars.. Viva_La_Revolution Jan 2012 #16

Yes, I believe in some states it has. EC Jan 2012 #21

So you can own three+ houses and still get food stamps? While I agree that the asset limit should jwirr Jan 2012 #49

Well, they didn't ask how many homes. EC Jan 2012 #51

Most states removed asset limits because so many newly unemployed JPZenger Jan 2012 #71

That's very true PRETZEL Jan 2012 #74

That is true. I was thinking that all of a sudden we drop the means tests for assets when the jwirr Jan 2012 #77

Assets could include furniture and other household goods. Should a person have to sell their pnwmom Jan 2012 #79

Speaking as somebody who was homeless, and lived out of a car for a year: boppers Jan 2012 #114

A dining room isn't a luxury in a little house with no eating space in the kitchen. pnwmom Jan 2012 #117

We've been discussing alot of these changes for a while PRETZEL Jan 2012 #17

Just process the poor and unemployed into Soylent Green. onehandle Jan 2012 #19

I don't think that will eliminate too many from EC Jan 2012 #20

Thats fine.... Klukie Jan 2012 #22

This is the same amount that social security limits for SSI Jkid Jan 2012 #23

Or we save the money under the table. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #95

I thought there always has been an asset test. That's nothing new. shraby Jan 2012 #24

This is how it is in Wisconsin too Nikia Jan 2012 #25

Not to worry ... JJW Jan 2012 #26

I don't know where the limits should be set, but I'm OK with this idea in principle. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #27

That's called "fraud" KamaAina Jan 2012 #28

No it is not fraud. Nothing in the programs say that you have to work enough hours a week to get jwirr Jan 2012 #53

She wasn't worried about her hours; she was worried about her income Orrex Jan 2012 #82

That is not fraud. When working with special ed clients who have jobs we always monitor their income jwirr Jan 2012 #89

I concur--it isn't fraud. It's making a wise use of a public service Orrex Jan 2012 #97

I was poor going to school but every once in a while cap Jan 2012 #33

acutally... maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #36

See KamaAina's comment above. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #44

no, I didn't report her to the police. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #60

I'm calling BS on this story of yours, it sounds exactly like a wingnut stereotype. Odin2005 Jan 2012 #96

I think you made a wrong turn somewhere, you seem to have turned left, when you meant to turn right. rubberducky Jan 2012 #39

you're shaming me for being a democrat in favor of vetting food stamp applicants? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #40

Then why post something so inflammatory? rubberducky Jan 2012 #41

Inflamitory? If there are no guidelines for these programs the banksters would be on them. I am jwirr Jan 2012 #58

the whole thread is over whether or not it's OK to have a vetting process for food stamp recipients. maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #59

Perhaps, I should have explained my reasoning better. rubberducky Jan 2012 #106

Based On My 11 Years RobinA Jan 2012 #45

you're correct and reinforcing my point, Mary was getting funds elsewhere and this should've maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #57

If she was a drug dealer Nikia Jan 2012 #63

these tests were defacto only until recenty Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #29

the issue is the low amount of the asset requirement JPZenger Jan 2012 #37

I totally agree Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #52

'the necessity of 2 cars'? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #61

Were you married? Nikia Jan 2012 #64

whether married or not is not relevant unless I'm missing something maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #102

The assett policy is for any family regardless of the number of adults Nikia Jan 2012 #105

that's interesting, can you provide a source? maggiesfarmer Jan 2012 #108

In can be. Wait Wut Jan 2012 #66

If two adults work at different locations, and there is limited public transit ehrnst Jan 2012 #103

Right, it's the RETURN to an asset test which is bucking the national trend. Gormy Cuss Jan 2012 #46

if you live in rural PA you will not be able to get to the food bank cap Jan 2012 #30

Go figure JJW Jan 2012 #32

How about nineteen50 Jan 2012 #34

They already do that here Coyote_Bandit Jan 2012 #35

The asset amount is too low, but Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #42

Citation, please Orrex Jan 2012 #83

Sadly I know a family with net worth in the millions that applied and got them. Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #84

"That means they have no security at all." boppers Jan 2012 #115

I am pretty sure that my state has had this kind of asset test for many years. We cannot have jwirr Jan 2012 #47

Yeah, some limit. caseymoz Jan 2012 #88

I got a nasty surprise this weekend doodadem Jan 2012 #48

alimony uses a net income scale Puzzledtraveller Jan 2012 #56

They'd Find It RobinA Jan 2012 #68

Savings, the little people have means the difference... Historic NY Jan 2012 #50

Another fine job by Gov Tom "I take money from known pedophiles" Corbett the Fracker LynneSin Jan 2012 #54

Saving for property taxes would put most people over the $2,000 limit PA Democrat Jan 2012 #62

I know... MadrasT Jan 2012 #67

Yes RobinA Jan 2012 #70

After the sheriff's sale, you can get some food stamps JPZenger Jan 2012 #72

Republicans would be just as happy if half the population starved to death! MarkCharles Jan 2012 #69

Welcome to Pennsylvania: Home of Tax-Free Fracking JPZenger Jan 2012 #73

Good new article on this topic from Phila. Tribune writer JPZenger Jan 2012 #75

What a boneheaded move that will INCREASE dependence on social services Canuckistanian Jan 2012 #78

Actually, this $2000 resource limit was in effect in Mass...in.... MarkCharles Jan 2012 #81

Yes, that seems to be it Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #85

$107 a week, 1973, $428 a month.. I lived well MarkCharles Jan 2012 #93

I feel sorry for younger people Yo_Mama Jan 2012 #109

Back in 1982 when I lost my factory job. BiggJawn Jan 2012 #86

You have to eat your 2002 Toyota Corolla to qualify for food stamps? caseymoz Jan 2012 #87

and this is why DonCoquixote Jan 2012 #91

What if you become unemployed? IDIOTS!! CoffeeCat Jan 2012 #98

If you live in PA and don't have any food, you can always devour fracking chemicals. blue neen Jan 2012 #99

So Pennsylvania will let children go hungry if their parents have more than coalition_unwilling Jan 2012 #101

Remember many people are not eligible for unemployment JPZenger Jan 2012 #104

I just don’t understand Gringostan Jan 2012 #107

This was how it was in my day Courtesy Flush Jan 2012 #110

yes, & $2000 in assets - 1 shitty used car. if you have an unshitty used car you're sol, you have HiPointDem Jul 2012 #119

One word: Bling. boppers Jan 2012 #116