Bloomerg Denies Food Stamps for Single, Unemployed Adults Looking for Work

[Triana]

:wtf:

A fight is brewing over federal money earmarked for food stamps.

Part of the stimulus package would bring about $155 million to the city to cover food stamps through September 2010.

But so far, Mayor Michael Bloomberg hasn't signed a waiver to extend those benefits to single adults who don't have dependents.

City officials and hunger advocates want Governor David Paterson to override the mayor and accept the waiver statewide.

But the mayor says the city will not give any handouts.

"The mayor of the City of New York has decided that in New York City, single individuals - single men and women - who will lose their jobs shouldn't be allowed to eat," said City Comptroller Bill Thompson at a press conference held by Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum. "That's as simple as it gets. He decided they shouldn't be allowed to put food on the table."

MORE:

http://www.ny1.com/content/news_beats/politics/95154/mayor-disapproves-of-food-stamps-for-single-unemployed-adults/Default.aspx

[marmar]

1. Bloomberg is showing his true colors......

...... but I'm sure his DU defenders will say otherwise.

[Triana]

this is just damn indefensible - the money isn't even coming from the state - it's

from the fed. And it's to be used for unemployed people to eat (no mention of it only being used for only unemployed married people or people with dependents - when you're single - you HAVE a dependent - YOURSELF).

[BrklynLiberal]

32. and if you are recently unemployed...you HAD BEEN paying taxes until recently!!

[tech3149]

16. True Colors Indeed

Those of us that have some grasp of reality know that Bloomberg is a rich fuck who views the world from that perspective. The last best mayor of NY was Dinkins. He might have been an asshole, but he didn't send the police after people who were just trying to make a living, even if that meant selling coke to Wall Street idiots that couldn't figure it would be safer to drive home and pick up a cheap whore or drive down the Parkway to get some on the way home.
I spent a few years taking care of these Wall St. assholes, I know how they (don't) think. Anyone that defends Bloomberg who can't discuss the realities of the last two administrations doesn't hold much weight in the discussion.

If anyone here wants to defend him, I'd love to hear the basis and logic for doing so.

As an aside: How much did Mikey put into winning the election? And he gets a salary of how much?

To marmar: I have spent a lot of time here since 2003, pretty much 24/7 and I don't recall any defenders of Bloomberg.

In fact, I remember sipping on a single malt at a bar on the Seaport(1999) while Mikey was trying to bag political influence to make a run for office.

If anyone on DU has defended Bloomberg, let them speak now or forever hold their peace.
The guy is an elitest and part of the oligarchy. That is enough reason to question his perspective and goals. No one who will spend billions to get a job that pays a few hundred thousand unless there is some alternative motive. Bloomberg is just playing the game. I suggest playing him for financial gain and then stick a knife in him. Just play him for a sucker and he'll go all-in.

[Raineyb]

17. Bloomberg is no better than Ghouliani

And that's saying something.

Police profiling is the same, cop shootings are still going basically unpunished and now he's overturned the law so he can run for a third term.

A friend of mine had said at the time of Bloomberg's first electoral win that maybe he'll be decent because as a businessman, he won't owe anyone anything since he didn't need their money to run.

I told her at the time that it is because Bloomberg is a businessman that he'll fuck us over just as easily as any politician. He won't give a damn about any of us because all he cares about is business and people like that aren't capable of the empathy needed to give a damn about the effects on the people that their decision have.

A couple of months ago we were going somewhere in my car when she was ranting about Bloomberg and telling me what a piece of shit she thought he was. Without any "I told you so's" on my part she turned to me and said. "You know what you were right. You called Bloomberg out for what he is from the beginning."

There's a reason why government and business ought not mix; Bloomberg and Bush exemplify this.

(Bloomberg is not the incompetent that Bush is but when you get business people in government, government does not do its job of serving the people because the people running the government don't give a damn. This should be remembered the next time someone says that government should be run as a business.)

Regards

[BrklynLiberal]

35. My opinion of Bloomberg coincides with yours, however I do know that he does not take a salary

for being Mayor. What his other gains may be is a totally different subject.

[TBF]

52. He doesn't need the salary given that he's already sitting on 16.2B -

he ought to be paying us for the privilege of serving, especially since he's doing such a crappy job.

His position on no food stamps is unconscionable.

[Donnachaidh]

56. BFD. He wants NYC to be one big gated community for *his sort*.

Anyone who supports this man needs their head examined, and then their ass handed to them.

[SOS]

54. Also it is important to note

that Giuliani cut ALL assistance to single adults back in about 1995.

In NYC, if you are a single adult, with no children, you are ineligible for any assistance from HRA.

[Triana]

59. I still can't believe that's legal..

..but I guess it is.

[MadMaddie]

2. If someone is unemployed and has no means to feed themselves

because they can't find a damned job. It's not a handout, it may be the last hope for many. He doesn't have to worry about starving does he?

This is going to turn into a lawsuit. The program is showing favortisim of one group over another.

[Triana]

4. discrimination based on marital status- seems like it needs a lawsuit

unemployed is unemployed - singles need to eat just like anyone else. This is senseless. Unbelieveable, in fact. Pfft!

[aquart]

11. And if you think that's the only discrimination against single adults...

So not.

[Skittles]

30. no need to tell me about that, aquart

we singles are very discriminated against

[Triana]

36. I know - I'm one of 'em

And I get SO SICK of being discounted because of being unmarried/childless - one, the other, or both. That's why this story caught my eye. It's just another example.

[DUlover2909]

44. In Texas, drug felons are not allowed access to food stamps.

Any other felons are OK. Murder, rape, whatever. I couldn't get a Lonestar Card right after I was released from prison because by felony was drug related. Real fair, huh?

[Triana]

50. !!!

:wtf:

[Merlot]

57. Yes, it's discrimination based on marital status. I hope there is a lawsuit soon.

BTW, did you know that in CA being single means you pay higher auto insurance? About 20% higher. And I'm not talking about teenagers and young 20 somethings. NO MATTER WHAT YOUR AGE, if you're single, you pay more.

Because single people spend all their time at singles bars and getting drunk and all. They are all immature and irresponsible. Right?

[Triana]

58. ?!?

:wtf:

[joeunderdog]

3. Is that even legal?

I know it's not ethical, but legal?

Why the hell does he wonder why the jails are so full if these people have to steal to eat? Does he think they'll just get a job or get married and it will all go away?

[Triana]

5. I wondered that too. That's why the "WTF?" thingy. I'd think this is not legal? n/t

[Starbucks Anarchist]

6. But he'll hand out money to "retrain" Wall Streeters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/nyregion/19bankers.html

[Triana]

10. Gee. Are any of them single? Maybe if they are they should be denied training...

...Pffft!

I'm so SICK OF our policy of coddling damned Wall Street - on local and Federal levels. Wall Street is like a spoilt, overindulged child brat.

[keep_it_real]

7. Bloomberg is a sick dude

nuff said; that says it all

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

8. shortsighted on Bloomberg's part

Besides showing a lack of compassion, this move by Bloomberg shows a lack of common sense. If people are unemployed and are staving, isn't it likely that a certain number of them will be driven to criminal activity? And criminal activity costs the city money for police, incarceration, and the courts.

Bloomberg should look back to history, to another mayor who was around before food stamps were. His name was La Guardia, and, if memory serves, he was a judge at night court for a while. Anyway, the cops brought in a man who they had caught stealing a loaf of bread. The Little Flower asked the man why he had done it. The man answered that he couldn't find a job and was starving. La Guardia looked around the courtroom and said, "I find this man guilty of stealing. But I find this city guilty of not helping this man out when he needed it. I'm asking the bailiff to collect a dollar from every court officer here today to give this man so that he can have a fresh start." The man left the courtroom in tears, with a pocket full of money to start over again.

[Triana]

9. It's definitely assinine. Unbelievable that he'd consider such a policy. n/t

[Laelth]

51. That's a beautiful story.

Too bad that the attorneys in the room (Court Officers) had to be punished for the City's failure, but I am glad La Guardia didn't send the thief to jail.

:dem:

-Laelth

[aquart]

12. Mayor having mini strokes?

Maybe it's time to retire.

[wellstone dem]

13. For those who want to know the current law, it's not "single" adults it's "childless" adults

And what these people get, unless they can prove disability, is 3 months of food stamps in any 3 year period, unless Bloomberg signs the bill.

That's right, 3 months in 3 years is what these people have been living with.

There should have been outrage at the existing law, at least we are getting upset about Bloomberg's idiocy.

[Triana]

15. 3 months of food every 3 years for childless people is god-awful...

...what rediculously unrealistic and inane law! That needs to change.

As for this bill/extension - I can't see Bloomberg (if he's sane and he obviously isn't) allowing that to stand ie: not signing the bill - especially right now! In today's economy, it's going to take a person - childless or not - hella lot longer than 3 months to find work! And as I said before, childless isn't without dependents - when single you have one dependent - yourself. That should count as much as anyone else. Unless it's thought that if you're childless, you don't count - which seems to be what he thinks and how the law is written - with that kind of attitude. Sheesh.

[Lorien]

22. Many of us who are single and childless already don't feel like we count

politicians only cater to families, not those who have never managed to find enough love to create one. So here we are getting punished for our lack of success in love, or our inability to reproduce, or our reluctance to reproduce in an overpopulated planet...talk about adding insult to injury!

[Hello_Kitty]

28. It's no accident.

Politicians cater to families because the Corporatocracy requires a steady stream of new consumers. By not reproducing, we have failed to do our duty and thus must be punished with higher taxes. When we can no longer even be taxed, we are thrown on the scrap pile.

[Triana]

29. Even though I'm aware of this, it still makes me shudder to read it...

..it's true - it's something I've noticed all my adult (childless, unmarried by choice) life. Shame on me for not conforming to the status corprat quo! :grr:

[Hello_Kitty]

27. That is the thought. We don't count.

It's not just food stamps we can't get. We also don't qualify for Medicaid. Didn't you get the memo? Food and health care is for "families". :sarcasm:

[OffWithTheirHeads]

14. Gee, They can either starve or become preditors

Which would you choose. About a week ago I heard about some poor girl holding up a 7-11. She was crying while doing it and saying that was desperate and she didn't know what else to do. What a fucking country. We really need to start chopping off some heads!

[ljm2002]

18. The mean-spiritedness of it is breathtaking...

...seriously. I can't understand it. Well, I can. It's pure politics. He gets to grandstand, he gets to pit one class of the poor against another, and no one has to seriously address what's going on.

In the meantime people become increasingly desperate.

And oh, by the way, does anyone ever take note of the fact that the food stamp program is a boon to the farming and food industries? More of their product gets sold, with the government subsidizing it.

And what the hell! Government is supposed to promote the general welfare. I should think that ensuring the basic needs of the population is a fine endeavor for a government that is worth anything at all.

We have such a warped system right now it's not even funny. When you have some dildo ranting at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to a bunch of other rich white guys about how damned mad they are that they might have to pay their neighbor's mortgage -- but nary a peep as a trillion taxpayer dollars get sucked into the black hole of the high-flying financiers...

Gaak, I'm having a hard time keeping a lid on it these days.

[Lorien]

23. And there was that study that said that food stamps do more to stimulate

the economy than any other action taken by the government; bringing in around 1.67 for every dollar spent, as opposed to 1.02 for the GOP's beloved tax cuts.

[jmm]

19. This is one way of keeping the official numbers down.

Lowering the threshold helps hide how many people are really going hungry.

[tonysam]

20. Uh...You Can Get Food Stamps If You Are Single W/O Dependents

You just have to be under a certain amount of income per month; in Nevada, I believe the monthly income cutoff is $800 a month to get full food stamp benefits.

However, I cannot receive food stamps while getting UI because my UI is well beyond the $800 a month allowed. I did, however, receive $145 a month in food stamps (plenty of food stamp benefits for me) between the time I was sacked and four months later when I received UI.

Bloomberg is an ass.

[Withywindle]

21. I'm not shocked, sadly.

Single, childless adults have been considered throwaways for a long time. It started when the Reaganomicon demanded any excuse to cut people from the rolls, and continued when politicians of all varieties started making their emotional appeals to "families"--as opposed to invoking the civic responsibilities and rights of "citizens" or "people."

And it's hard to object to this treatment without legions rising up calling you "selfish" for, in their imaginations, trying to take food out of children's mouths.

Far from my intent. I just want a small fraction of the deductionless tax load I've carried without complaint all these years to be available to me and my unused uterus (wanna buy it? Cheap!) when I need it for a change.

[Triana]

24. I'm with you and Lorien - the book "Singled Out" deals with all this crap...

...it's a good read - it'll piss you off even worse though! For example, the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund accorded the life of single people less worth than the life of marrieds, which is explained in the book - along with TONS of other ways singles are discriminated against (and childless people).

It's rediculous.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. If you are not a parent you are worthless.

You are tolerated as long as you can make an income that can be taxed (at a higher rate) to subsidize people with children. But as soon as you need help you can go pound sand.

And people wonder why we childfree folks grumble sometimes. :grr:

[Triana]

26. I grumble all the time! Bella DePaulo is my friend...

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/authors/bella-depaulo

[Withywindle]

37. Shit, they won't even hire you for a job way below your skills after 35!

In THEORY, looking back, the best thing I could have done to secure my economic feature would have been to have some babies in my 20s.

Silly me, having no desire to be a mother of any kind, much less a single one, and paying all that cash at the drugstore for various means to make sure that motherhood wouldn't happen. I feel like I'm penalized for knowing how a condom works and being willing to go to the "no glove no love" mat.

Silly me, thinking that I'm be coming into my career prime as a 40-year-old who never took a leave or went on the "mommy track," I just kept writing (for 14 years for the alt-weekly paper that just laid me off). Oh, but a few lines around my eyes and mouth and all of a sudden I'm a lot less fit for a potential book tour.


I guess I could probably get some support as a single mom, but fuck, I'd be a lousy one; I don't even LIKE kids.

[Triana]

48. It probably doesn't help that you're not alone but...

...you're not alone. There are apparently a lot of use "useless" childless "people" out here who may as well drop dead. (40 or over too)

:eyes:

Single, childless, 40 or over?

Die!

You have nothing to contribute to society! You refuse to contribute to the problem of overpopulation and overconsumption, and you have a wrinkle, so you are a waste of oxygen!

Starve!

.
.
.

Puh.

What a sick society we live in.

[BrklynLiberal]

31. This is the same man who pushed the City Council to nullify the rule that said he could not run for

a third term as Mayor. Exactly who does he think is going to vote for him?
Not me...that is for sure...and no one that I know.

[SeattleGirl]

33. Wow, so people who don't have dependent kids, or don't have kids

at all apparently don't get hungry? Who knew?

[Triana]

34. Guess not. Wish someone had told me - I could stop eating and save lots of money!

Since I have no "dependents" - and I don't count as one.

[SeattleGirl]

38. No kidding!

Guess we'd better help get the word out to those lazy, shiftless people who have no dependents!

(:crazy: )

[Raineyb]

53. Apparently they don't need healthcare either.

Be responsible and don't bring children into the world that you can't pay for no health care for you. Die!

Be irresponsible and get pregnant even though you know you can't afford to raise the kid, you can get health care.

How fucked up is that?

Regards

[northernlights]

39. same thing up here

in Maine, unless I totally misread their food stamp provisions. Single, able-bodied, unable to find work adults can starve for all they care.

[SeattleGirl]

42. That's the thing though.....they DON'T care.

Not as long as it doesn't touch them or any of their family.

Then, well, hell, they'd be all up in arms.

But if it's no one they know, then their attitude is, fuck you.

I hate these people.

[Horse with no Name]

63. Conversely

It's hard to find work on an empty stomach--and provided you can find some measly service job that pays next to nothing, it's hard to go to work when you are weak from hunger.:(

[killbotfactory]

40. We should kill them and harvest their organs

So that productive people like the CEO's of the failing banks can live longer and continue to be productive.

[Enthusiast]

41. Bloomberg deserves to experience

hunger for this. What a complete asshole!

[SeattleGirl]

43. Make him live 30 days on food stamps, in a lower income place.

Let's see how he thinks after that.

Fucking asshole.

[readmoreoften]

45. And NYC is so cheap too. What with $6 frozen dinners.

[Vinca]

46. Some people have an irrational fear that one undeserving person

might get a food stamp or two. Apparently Bloomberg is one of them. At least NYC has great restaurants so there are better quality trash bins to pick from. Amazing.

[moondust]

47. He doesn't get it.

The myopic billionaire does not seem to understand that the childless produce no future burdens on government or society beyond their own lifetimes. They deserve some kind of reward for that--certainly not punishment.

[Triana]

49. But all we've ever gotten - is punishment.

Bumbleberg isn't the only one who doesn't get it - society doesn't either - Bumbleberg's is just the latest nasty example.

Society's rules apparently dictate that people must procreate and consume - or they are worthless and worth less - ans should just starve, die, disappear.

[moondust]

55. It's primitive conservative thinking.

Things were different back when the population of the planet was a few billion or less and there were plenty of resources for most of those people as far as the eye could see. Now that the population is more than six billion and expected to grow by 50% just over the next five decades or so, individuals who choose to not continue overpopulating the planet should be considered heroes.

Capitalism is unable to provide a decent, stable life for much of the current population. But a few individuals like Bloomberg are allowed to become obscenely wealthy and that must be preserved at all costs! :sarcasm:

[Darth_Kitten]

60. It's all right though when they pay tons of taxes that help other people...and their kids.

:(

[Kat45]

61. Single people without children always get the shaft.

When there is help, it is for "families" or "children". Single people without children do not exist in their worldview.

[Horse with no Name]

62. That's so cool!!!!!

It is good to know that single people without kids don't get hungry! WTG Bloomie...

Oh yeah...weren't there some folks here that wanted him as our VP?

Sigh. If only....





















:puke: