- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
The economic stimulus package would allow poor and out-of-work singles to continue to have access to food stamps while they are actively looking for work. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg refuses to accept the money. The Mayor doesn't have to find the money; he is getting the money. That money will create even more money. The food stamps will go to eligible singles who want to work and are trying to find work. Those singles aren't going to get Bernie Madoff-like penthouse accommodations. They are going to get to eat, just barely enough. Read More
Rather shocking
I mean, it's not like Bloomberg is some sort of extremist, he's supposed to be very moderate and reasonable. But this seems to be anything but reasonable.
Though I'm surprised that food stamps are limited to only 3 months for singles. Do other groups get them for longer? Even 6 months might be too short when the economy is this bad...
Sometimes 'Personal Responsibility' is taken too far
The only reason I can think of for why the mayor might refuse
is that he feels people will be lazy looking for work if they don't have to worry about starving. Sometimes I find Republican rants about 'personal responsibility' very wearying - for some reason it reminds me of Marie Antionette's "Let them eat cake".
I called the Mayor's Office to Make a Complaint...
about this policy.
This isn't a reasonable reaction to the economic crisis, and Bloomberg recently discussed spending city money on retraining financial sector workers.
In my town, there was a benefit held to help a family with thirteen kids, which had lost the family house. Outpourings of community aid for families with kids but nothing for singles. Why is having children the only way to legitimize your social worth? We're supposed to be a modern society.
Fuzzy issue
Bella usually has me wrapped around her finger but, as I followed the link and read the original article, I'm a little on the fence with this one. There is no distinction made between singles and marrieds; they're talking about able-bodied adults without dependents. These are people without children. Now, if your spouse is also unemployed, can they be filed as a dependent?
Whether or not people with children should receive food stamps longer than people without children is a tough question. I think everything should be done to help people with children, regardless of marital status. Children are the future. If it takes someone longer to get a job because they have to care for children or other dependents, than they should have a longer time to do so. I'm not informed enough to know whether or not that's the case.
I guess I'm just not sniffing out the singlism in this one.
hmmm...
Interesting question about whether one person can claim their spouse as a dependent if both are unemployed. Don't know the answer. The proportion of married people who have children is far greater than the proportion of singles who have children, so the policy comes down hardest on singles. But you are right -- so far as I can tell, marrieds without dependents (not knowing how that is defined, other than children) are not excluded. Thanks for keeping me on my toes!
I do believe that we as a society need to do what we can to help those who truly cannot help themselves. I'd take that beyond young children to include any dependent, such as adults who have severe illnesses or disabilities, and the frail elderly. There are some indications (though the work is only suggestive and more research is needed) that singles do more than their share of that work.
Adults are the future too
Unless they're near death.
I could see giving more money to those with dependents, but why shouldn't benefits be longer to those without as well?
should be
yes, I think they should be
bloomberg
once again the republicans are playing politics with peoples lives.All Bloomberg is doing is playing to the base of the party to set himself up for a white house run in 2012.Having nearly been in that state myself I can tell you it aint easy trying to find work but i digress.We just have another example of the fact that if we arent married we aren't as valued as someone who is married and if we don't raise a stink about this we deserve what ever we don't get
Are pregnant women allowed
Are pregnant women allowed food stamps? In MA pregnant women are allowed to count their unborn as a dependent for state-subsidized health insurance. You can only receive the health insurance if you are under a certain percentage above the poverty line, so if you are single and pregnant, your "household income" is divided by 2 rather than 1, etc.
Post new comment