If Ohio were to lose its current waivers in 35 counties, an estimated about 75,000 individuals would have to have a slot made available to them. The cost associated with that would be about $600 million.

I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes will take away needed flexibility for my state to help communities and individuals who are struggling with unemployment, opioid addiction, and other barriers to work.

Harsh and arbitrary time limits are misguided and only increase hunger and hardship.

SNAP is the first line of defense against hunger in this country, not food banks.

It's time we call this what it is: a rush to accomplish a conservative political wish-list.

Tens of thousands of real people like him are slipping through the cracks.

There is no dignity in taking food away from the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.

Most importantly, the rule sidesteps the will of Congress, which rejected these changes when it enacted the 2018 Farm Bill.

Our job is to do the most for those who have the least. Let's just follow the law.

People want a hand up, not a hand out, and it is insulting to suggest otherwise.

Hungry people are hungry people. People who work are people who work.

What will happen to the 755,000 people?

Yes, there were jobs in 2006. There aren't today for low-skilled and unskilled workers.

Lifting yourself up by your boot straps only works if you have boots.

This proposed rule is nothing more than another attempt by the GOP and the Trump Administration to reintroduce the thoughtless House Republican SNAP provisions that were rejected in the 2018 Farm Bill.

It is dishonest and immoral for anyone to assume or suggest that poor people do not want to work.

people want a hand up, not a hand out, and it is insulting to suggest otherwise.

A low unemployment rate does not erase the existence of significant barriers to unemployment in our nation's poorest communities.

It is time we call this what it is: a rush to accomplish a conservative political wish-list.

If I didn't know better, I would think that there were no job requirements or training requirements for ABAWDs. There are. It is the law now.

the proposed rule fails to consider the effect of the proposed changes in the face of a deteriorating economy.

the Federal Government should not be impeding states' ability to apply for waivers from work requirements in areas where there is evidence of a lack of sufficient jobs.

What is their potential? We have to have confidence in them and do whatever we can in order to promote that.

The proposed rule would shift the burden of providing food from the Federal Government on to cities, states, and local charities.

If we are really honest with ourselves, and we started to talk to the people who are in these situations instead of believing that they are invisible and they are unworthy and undeserving, we might have a different outcome.