Farmers Singles Com Camtasia 2 For Mac

Posted on 25.09.2019

Camtasia For Mac Download

Jun 21, 2018 - A deeply polarizing farm bill narrowly passed the House on. The two camps has huge implications for the future of food and farm policy in the. Sep 14, 2018 - Tinder may have been the original mobile dating app, but new apps such as Bumble, Happn and Glimpse have taken over the smartphone.

As expected, keyboards lit up and social media was on fire with complaints and praise about of the Mac Pro. Long story short, a new 'modular' Mac Pro is not coming in 2018 after a discussion in April 2017, but is a 2019 release.

Camtasia 2 for Mac is available in the Budig Instruction Lab (10 Budig Hall) and the Media Production Studio (10 Budig Hall). Purchase: Faculty and staff can work with their campus technology staff and KU Procurement to purchase Camtasia for KU-owned workstations.

'We want to be transparent and communicate openly with our pro community so we want them to know that the Mac Pro is a 2019 product,' Apple's senior director of Mac hardware product marketing, Tom Boger, said on Thursday. 'It's not something for this year.' Apple will do what Apple will do. We can complain about it - but in the end it isn't going to make one ounce of difference. I am not here to praise Apple, nor damn it with faint praise.

But, there is a lot to talk about, and a lot we don't know. We know what we want - but it isn't universal I know what I want. I want a box like my 5,1 Mac Pro that I have upgraded past all reason, for no other reason than so I can do it again. Gazing at the (heated) forum discussions about this, so do a large percentage of AppleInsider readers. But, as always, 'we' are not indicative of Apple's overall user base, let alone the subset that uses the Mac. Apple has no obligation to 'dance with who brung you' In days of yore, when the 2012 Retina MacBook Pro shipped, the fire and fury about non-upgradeable began in earnest, and I started thinking about the assorted venues I'd done service work for, and asked colleagues about their time in the bays as well. Between us all, we collected our dusty data on customers that had performed upgrades, or commissioned us to perform them on their own computers.

A bit less than three in a hundred users even installed RAM on their own, and on top of that, about six in a hundred users paid somebody else to do it. So, rounding up, one in 10 users of the total user base between 1998 and 2010 did their own upgrades.

It doesn't get easier to upgrade than this, and most still didn't do it. Even if you double that figure for hardware that didn't fail and we didn't capture, that's only one in five users, in the heyday of upgrades, that even thought tossing in more RAM was worthwhile. Since then, we've gathered more data, and even about it. One upgrader in five users is probably being generous. And, Apple knows this better than we do. They have all the data, back to the dawn of Apple-certified service departments.

Modular is a loaded word Apple has now said on three occasions that the new Mac Pro will be 'modular' and 'upgradeable.' Technically, the iMac Pro is upgradeable with RAM slots and a socketed processor, but Apple isn't making that a big selling point, or particularly easy to do. Everything Apple has said about the new Mac Pro has been carefully calculated, and discussed beforehand. This has been a sculpted message from the get-go, and an exchange between two Apple executives in Thursday's piece points that out. 'As we said a year ago, working on modular was inherently a modular system and in looking at our customers and their workflows obviously that's a real need for our customers,' Said Boger. 'And that's the direction we're going.'

'Well, it's a need for some of them, I want to be clear that the work that we're doing as a part of the workflow team is across everything,' added Vice President of Hardware Engineering John Ternus. 'It's super relevant for MacBook Pros, it's super relevant for iMacs and iMac Pros and in the end I think it helps us in dialogue with customers to figure out what are the right systems for you. There is absolutely a need in certain places for modularity.

But it's also really clear that the iMac form factor or the MacBook Pros can be exceptionally good tools.' That word again, coupled with upgradeable, and then dialed back a bit by another Apple exec, nearly instantly.

If Apple wanted to promise socketed processors, RAM slots, and PCI-E slots, they could have very precisely said that from the get-go, or even on Thursday. Instead, we keep getting hit with 'modular' and 'upgradeable' - and who knows what that actually means. There is no 'one true Pro' Our own forums have been full of discussions about what professionals need. A notable portion of them assume that what they need is universal, and what everybody needs. A subset of those go further, and claim that if you don't need that particular use case, then the reader is not a pro at all. Apple made a mistake with the 'Pro' naming scheme, which feeds into the toxic elitism surrounding this.

Owning a 'Pro' machine doesn't magically make you one, and conversely if you use a Mac mini from 2010 or even older gear to make your money, you are just as much a Pro user as far as Apple is concerned as Disney and Lucasfilm. The pair had a bunch of the 5,1 Mac Pro that they never upgraded, a mountain of the cylindrical Mac Pro that they never added RAM to, a ton of the new iMac Pro that will ultimately be disposed of in the same configuration they bought them in. Imagine these, spanning hundreds of desks. There is no way to argue with any veracity that Disney and Lucasfilm don't qualify as pros because they won't upgrade the hardware fleet with RAM, new processors, and faster video cards. Many will buy the Mac Pro when it ships - but with no intent to upgrade them at all.

Wanting to upgrade your Mac doesn't make you a 'Pro,' and being a 'Pro' doesn't mean you want to upgrade your Mac. And, once again, Apple knows this. But, for some reason, a good amount of the Apple devout doesn't. What's a Pro to do? Waiting until 2019 for a radically designed new Mac Pro is reasonable.

But, I think that waiting until then for a Mac Pro is too long. I'm in the camp that believes that something like a resurrection of the cheese grater would be a decent stop-gap measure for the upgradeable crowd, and something a little fresher in the cylindrical Mac Pro for those that don't need that would be fine - but I acknowledge that either suits my particular needs and wants and isn't for everybody. Professionals tend to over-estimate their own halo effect while in the grip of rage about a machine that is not aimed squarely at them. Yes, they may influence a few purchases, but these are overshadowed by any effect the iPhone has, and by the massive volume purchases that Apple's enterprise partners are now making. Apple will take their newly-hired focus group, and use their creative professionals that they've brought on board to develop workflows to test, and make a computer that they want to make. It will be a very good one at that.

But, like Thursday's revelation, it will also generate complaint disproportionate to actual negative impact. These will be associated with threats that a user will abandon the Mac, and no longer recommend the hardware to others which will allegedly cause the doom of Apple, as it has always been, and always shall be. Apple has no obligation to 'dance with who brung you' as the saying goes, as much as we might like. As a result, the 2019 Mac Pro will be the best Mac Pro for Apple, like the 2016 MacBook Pro was and remains, and not necessarily the best for you, or me. I actually upgraded RAM after I bought the standard iMac to save money.

I've done the same with all my PC's as well. While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that.

The upgrades are more common among those who own pros at home than those who use them at work. Do you really think that companies will let users upgrade their company machines? That's not how it works. Companies OWN those machines, not users. Users have little say.

Companies also don't have IT departments upgrade their machines either if they even have an IT dept in the first place. They buy what they can afford and meets their specs and use it until it doesn't meet their needs anymore and repeat the process. Yes, I'm sure there are those who do, but again as stated its few and far between.

Camtasia For Mac Download

Does that mean it shouldn't be modular? No, but its not as big of a deal as people are making it out to be and I bet most of the people whining the most aren't even Mac Pro users. They just think the Mac Pro should have this in order to be considered a 'Pro' Mac as if they're the subject expert on this matter.

Edited April 6. Just like with phones those who complain about Apples iphone not able to upgrade storage yet those who buy android for that reason never upgrade, people are either lazy or techinically challenged. I have only ever had the need to upgrade RAM on my Macs and harddrives on occasion when i owned a windows machine. I have a 2012 macbook ram upgraded to 16 gig, and an iMac ram upgraded to 32 gig, mostly to handle photoshop, aperature and lightroom photo manipulations. Sure if i hit the lottery i’d get a maxed out imac pro and/or tower but i don’t need that kind of power. My macs seem to last me a decade as is.

I just gave my niece my 2005 Macbook has 8 gig of ram and surprisingly still runs Adobe Suite 2018. I actually upgraded RAM after I bought the standard iMac to save money. I've done the same with all my PC's as well. While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that. The upgrades are more common among those who own pros at home than those who use them at work.

Do you really think that companies will let users upgrade their company machines? That's not how it works.

Companies OWN those machines, not users. Users have little say. At no point did I say that nobody does it. In fact, the middle of the article spells out who does, and how rare it is. It's just important to note, that while probably 90% of AI readers do it, we are far and away the minority in that regard.

Apple should make this an insanely powerful even if it means 18 core CPU and 128 GB RAM starting at $ 10,000 for the base model. Unfortunately this won't arrive till 2020. The Mac Pro should be the catch-all for those that are not best suited for anything anywhere else in the lineup and have needs that demand either the most demanding CPU for a workstation or a GPU for the same (not a consumer PC). It should be able to be configurable to be higher than the iMac Pro and with the option of an entry config (those that need configurable options - but don't need the top of the line CPU power). Maybe start at Xeon Silver 4112 ($470/CPU) up to Xeon Platinum 8180 ($10,000/CPU) - with maybe two other price points in the middle of that range (so 8 to 56 cores).

It should have at least a maximum of 256GB, with the option of handling up to two GPU cards, once TPU (tensor) card, and at least one additional PCIe slot for expansion. The design should be conservative so that it makes it easier to bump the machine without too much work going forward. Basically, it should be able to be more than the iMac Pro but also be able to catch those that need expandability or other options. I actually upgraded RAM after I bought the standard iMac to save money. I've done the same with all my PC's as well. While it's true most of those machines don't get upgraded, it does not mean nobody does that.

The upgrades are more common among those who own pros at home than those who use them at work. Do you really think that companies will let users upgrade their company machines?

That's not how it works. Companies OWN those machines, not users. Users have little say. At no point did I say that nobody does it. In fact, the middle of the article spells out who does, and how rare it is. It's just important to note, that while probably 90% of AI readers do it, we are far and away the minority in that regard.

Regarding work, the fact that the user won't upgrade it isn't the point. The corporate entity doesn't, and won't, as it's neither cost nor labor effective to do so. I'd think that 90% is extremely high, especially when you consider that it's been years since Mac notebooks have had user-upgradable RAM and I have to assume that it's the most common Mac type used my AI readers. The last time I did upgrade the RAM in a Mac it was a 27' iMac about 5 years ago, and I may have done some to max out much older Macs for people, but I've been buying my other Macs with maxed out RAM because its soldered. Really, if it wasn't, their RAM prices have been low enough to good 3rd-party options (compared to a decade+ ago) the I'd likely just have maxed it out from Apple anyway. The only case where I'd likely not max it out is the iMac Pro, but that's not because I don't need anywhere close to 128 GiB of RAM, even if it wasn't a $2400 upgrade.

I'd probably stick with the native 32 GiB even though getting to the four 4 full-size RAM modules means dismantling practically the entire machine. Even the OWC option will set you back over $2000 but you'll have to send them your iMac Pro, wait for them to install it and send it back to you.

It is nice that they charge just as much for 4x32 GiB as they do for 2x64 GiB, which will facility future support for 256 GiB (or more). I disagree with the article. Workflow teams from 'StarWars' were the same narrow group that liked the trashcan.

I’m getting worried about this upcoming “modular” Mac. The trashcan Mac was “modular” with a octopus nest of wires and boxes snaking from it. I don’t want a “modular” Mac. I want an.expandable.

Mac. Pixar/StarWars users are barely 'pro' users, and they are just fine with an iMac/iMac Pro/Trashcan mac. But the trashcan mac is a failure, and not just for thermal reasons. It doesnt come close to what pro users want.

It's not true that apple knows better here. The Pros know better and it doesnt matter what the 'wider' audience thinks/wants because that audience has the iMac and MacBooks, so basically, screw them, their thoughts/needs are irrelevant. Mark my words, if they dont put out a mac with slots, some storage bays, discrete video cards, upgradable ram, and expansion abilities (akin to Mac Pros prior to the trashcan), it will be game over for the professional market for apple. This article is a mistake imo as it gives apple some cover or an out for doing the wrong thing. Now is NOT the time to give them outs. Now is the time to say, losers, don't mess this up.

So that some bulk doesnt make use of that expandability is a red herring, because that it's not capable is a nonstarter for many pros and thats why you see the revolt on the trashcan mac. Now is the time to hold their feet to the fire and say, DO THIS OR ELSE. Edited April 6. I really think upgradability is something that people say they want more than they actually do. Let's say a creative professional buys a $5000 Mac Pro (close to top of the line without going nuts). He already has a display and peripherals.

How many times would he upgrade it before replacing it? What is he actually going to upgrade beyond the RAM and maybe storage?

All the professionals I know that need the maximum performance available are quick to upgrade and will max it out from the start because every processing cycle translate into dollars for them. It's hard for me to wrap my head around the other argument, but I'm all for Apple supporting those users as it doesn't negatively affect my usage in any way. I disagree with the article. Mark my words, if they dont put out a mac with slots, some storage bays, discrete video cards, upgradable ram, and expansion abilities (akin to Mac Pros prior to the trashcan), it will be game over for the professional market for apple. I have heard this so many times in 25 years, yet here we are. This article isn't about Apple. This is about it's overly-devout, that say ridiculous things when they don't get what they want based on what they think Apple needs to do, or what they think that the engineers are going to crank out.

Hey Mike, I totally disagree with your analysis of the number of people upgrading RAM. I know for a fact that number is much much higher. Apple charges 3x the price for RAM upgrades. Your numbers make sense when you look at the data Apple has - which shows people are smart enough to not order ram from Apple. I think a better way to determine the true number is to ask a company like OWC how business is? Determine their market share, extrapolate sales / new machines sold etc. I've upgraded the RAM on my own for every Mac I've ever owned (40-50 computers).

On top of that, I've upgraded all of my friends Mac's with ram (100+ computers). On top of that, I upgrade all of my clients computers with RAM or direct them to OWC (300+ computers). Thats about 450 computers with upgraded RAM that Apple, or anyone else, has zero data on. And I'm just 1 guy.

I have many peers who do the same for their friends and clients. I could easily estimate over 3000+ computers. I would argue the type of people answering your poll here are 'unlikely' to be upgraders. If you ran the same poll on Barefeats - it would probably be close to 100% upgrade their RAM on their own.

I'll say it again. To truly meet every Pro's needs, a truly 'modular' Mac is needed. This requires a complete rethinking of how a computer is designed. Instead of just one box, and having to upgrade that box or replace it when more power is needed, instead, imagine if you just added another box. Imagine Mac mini's that daisy-chained together to create a Mac Pro.

Yes, Grid computing for consumers. This would turn the industry on its ear, and Apple would have an advantage that competitors could not match (easily). With Apple TVs and HomePods having powerful processors, yet under utilized, if Apple did build in grid computing, imagine the power you could tap into when on your home network?! Every device could contribute processing cycles to whatever device you are using. Yes, this is possible, and was available as Xgrid in the past. Apple lost their way on that project. I hope it returns.

I disagree with the article. Workflow teams from 'StarWars' were the same narrow group that liked the trashcan. I’m getting worried about this upcoming “modular” Mac. The trashcan Mac was “modular” with a octopus nest of wires and boxes snaking from it. I don’t want a “modular” Mac. I want an.expandable.

Apple didn't listen on the Mac Pro once already and a HUGE amount of pro users defected from the Mac (they didn't want to, but apple didn't give them a choice). That number has increased. They put out another trashcan like 'modular' system, and a huge portion of the remainder will defect. It's not true that apple knows better here. The Pros know better and it doesnt matter what the 'wider' audience thinks/wants because that audience has the iMac and MacBooks, so basically, screw them, their thoughts/needs are irrelevant. Mark my words, if they dont put out a mac with slots, some storage bays, discrete video cards, upgradable ram, and expansion abilities (akin to Mac Pros prior to the trashcan), it will be game over for the professional market for apple. This article is a mistake imo as it gives apple some cover or an out for doing the wrong thing.

Now is NOT the time to give them outs. Now is the time to say, losers, don't mess this up.

Apple can and has admitted being wrong to consumers (when they pushed DV video instead of CD burning Steve Jobs did an about face). Also, the premise that many people never upgrade their mac pro is a faulty one for the pro market. Many people dont hit the top speed of their car, but buy corvettes anyway. Also, for professionals, it's not that they will max out those abilities, but it's a non-starter when they are not able to do those customizations that their niche demands. So that some bulk doesnt make use of that expandability is a red herring, because that it's not capable is a nonstarter for many pros and thats why you see the revolt on the trashcan mac. Now is the time to hold their feet to the fire and say, DO THIS OR ELSE.

That is some elitist stuff here. I don't even think you know what the word 'Pro' means but you would had you actually read the article. 'Workflow teams from 'StarWars' were the same narrow group that liked the trashcan.' And ' Apple didn't listen on the Mac Pro once already ' are mutually exclusive. 1 of those can be true but not both. Simple logic 101.

' The Pros know better and it doesnt matter what the 'wider'???? ' The Pros know better'??? You have already demonstrated you don't know what a 'Pro' user is.

How can they 'know better' when you can't even define the group you are talking about? ' Also, the premise that many people never upgrade their mac pro is a faulty one for the pro market.'

Again, you have reading issues since the author neither wrote that nor implied that. That said, you have made it very clear what you are after from YOUR stand point but don't assume every single 'Pro' user has the same exact criteria as you or your criteria are even a majority of views for the target audience. From Apple's perspective to me it makes the most sense to optimize hardware and software to provide the best experience which includes specifications of models. There is absolutely no reason to allow a user to upgrade for their model from my perspective. I am driving my opinion from the fact that a majority do not want to nor need to do this. Yes there is a small percent that will not like this but they have Windows based PC builds they can fill their need from. Does not mean Apple needs to have this.

Regarding the polling of Apple store visitors from a few years back, that is as average Apple customer as you can literally get. Your data isn't wrong, but like the Barefeats readers you speak of, it is skewed the wrong way from a polled population standpoint. It's like asking AppleInsider readers how many have done upgrades. And, regarding Apple's data. They know exactly who upgrades and who doesn't.

What do you think gets included in those crash reports? Edited April 6.

Jenni and Paul Callahan moved to Duncan, South Carolina in 2013 to fulfill a lifelong dream of farming. They left the political world of Washington, D.C., and established with the motto, “Small farm. Big promise.” The Callahans had anticipated this transition for years, and Paul held jobs off the farm until 2016. But in spite of their preparation and hard work, the Callahans found themselves struggling. “We were having trouble paying the bills, so I looked at what we could do to lighten our load,” says Jenni. She decided to apply for food stamps from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—also known as food stamps—in early 2017, and qualified for nearly the maximum benefit for their family of six. In addition to the eggs, milk, vegetables, and meat they were able to get from their own farm, she says SNAP benefits let them buy more shelf-stable foods.

“I don’t care who you are, you have to have some things in a box,” she adds, “And so much of this is because we don’t have the time—it takes a lot of time to work the farm.”. The Callahans in December 2017. (Photo courtesy of ) While there are no current statistics on how many farmers receive SNAP benefits, the rate of rose from 12.5 percent to 16 percent from 2010 to 2015, exceeding the national average. Making a living exclusively from farming has proven difficult, if not impossible, for more than half of the farmers in the United States: According to the USDA, work off the farm at least part-time. And farmers like the Callahans benefit from SNAP in more than one way: the recent rise in at farmers’ markets in nearly every state has also brought in much-needed income for small and medium-scale farmers. At the in nearby Spartanburg, South Carolina, Jenni alternates between selling produce to shoppers and spending her own SNAP benefits, which are worth double as a result of the state’s.

Jenni buys fruit, meat, and grains at the market in order to maximize her benefit while supporting her fellow farmers. “We sell at this particular market because it’s run by a nonprofit dedicated to reaching food deserts. Healthy food should be on everyone’s table, not just the wealthy,” she says. As market sellers, the Callahans also accept SNAP from their customers.

Last year, 10 to 15 percent of their profits came in the form of SNAP dollars, while this year that number has increased to 20 to 25 percent. Any loss of SNAP benefits would cause a huge financial impact, and while the Callahans have discussed how to make up for such a loss, they don’t have many options.

“Our plan is for our SNAP use to be temporary, but if the benefits went away suddenly, I don’t know what we’d do,” Jenni says. “We might consider raising more animals for meat, although right now we don’t have the space.” Not being able to support their family without the aid of SNAP is frustrating for the Callahans, who devote most of their time to working their farm and growing their business. “How do small businesses make it?” asks Jenni. Heather Raines, market manager of Hub City Farmers’ Market, is very familiar with the two-pronged value SNAP provides farmers. “We have close to 300 regular SNAP users who would otherwise be unable to afford fresh, local produce,” she says, “And if requirements changed for SNAP, our farmers would lose $43,000 in income.” The, which is expected to face a second vote later this month, threatens to cut or do away with SNAP benefits for a sizable number of low-income Americans. It proposes that those who retain the benefits participate in work training programs—a shift that would require time that the Callahans and other farmers don’t have to spare.

Eligibility requirements would also be stricter, and a universal work requirement has been proposed. Under the current regulations, about 3.5 million people meet the “able-bodied adults” classification. Under the new bill, that number may double, requiring twice as many SNAP recipients to fulfill work requirements. Critics of the bill argue that these new requirements would make many SNAP recipients unable to keep up with the demands of the program, causing them to forfeit much-needed assistance. The Senate’s draft farm bill, which was and is expected to be, largely leaves SNAP programs intact, which if the Senate approves it will set up a significant challenge to reconcile the Senate bill with the House version. SNAP is a Lifeline. Meighen Lovelace, standing with Massachusetts congressman Jim McGovern as part of a National Farmers Union event in May 2018.

(Photo courtesy of ) Meighen Lovelace grows four different crops on two leased acres in Avon, Colorado, where she practices diversified growing, planting different crops at different times to make the most use of her land. In 2008, Lovelace—who learned how to grow food from her mother—says her family was hit hard by the recession. At first she didn’t sign up for SNAP, because she thought she could find other ways to make ends meet, like turning down the heat in her family home instead. But the wake-up call came when she discovered that her children were hiding food in their pockets after attending public events where food was provided. She says her children were anxious about not having food at home, so they would stash hors d’oeuvres in their pockets for later.

“I would find it when doing the laundry,” she recalls. She worried that her children would become hoarders. “Once I utilized the SNAP program, I was able to afford my daughter’s medication,” she says. Lovelace says she uses the benefits only when necessary.

“This is a bridge program. I’m not going to be on it forever, but it’s my life right now. I don’t know what I would do without it,” she says.

As a farmer, Lovelace knows that every piece of food she grows is a dollar sign, and she works hard to maximize her profits, canning, pickling, and preserving food to sell in the off-season, since the Colorado growing season is so short. She says that during the growing season, putting in extra hours on doing job training to earn her SNAP benefits would be next to impossible. Her local workforce center serves five counties and is currently closed because of a staffing shortage. Even online training would be difficult, since she is a single parent with limited time and access to broadband. Woody Hartlove on the Harlan County Farmers’ Market’s Blender Bike. (Photo courtesy ) In Harlan, Kentucky, Woody Hartlove owned a motorcycle repair shop, until the closure of local coal mines dried up his business.

He made ends meet doing odd jobs, but turned to farming two years ago, after his wife’s work hours were cut in half. What started as a small hobby farm became Hartlove’s business, with the help of. With only 1,000 square feet of farmland, Hartlove made $10,000 last year growing 18 crops and harvesting maple syrup. His goal is to acquire additional land, but in the meantime Hartlove and his wife rely on SNAP to supplement the food they grow for themselves.

Hartlove is also the farmers’ market manager for his county’s market, which is relatively new. At present, he says 10 to 15 percent of the customers use SNAP. “We don’t get a whole lot,” he says, “but it does help. If we lost it, it would put us in a bind.” And Hartlove expects the number of SNAP users to increase as the market grows. “The next county over, 50 percent of customers use tokens,” he says. While Congress discusses their future, farmers like the Callahans, Lovelace, and Hartlove are all in the middle of a busy growing season.

But the thought of having to live without SNAP is on all their minds. As Lovelace sees it, the rhetoric behind the farm bill’s proposed requirements—which often paint a picture of misuse and sloth—tell a completely different story than what she’s seeing on the ground, where SNAP is key to survival for many, including those who grow our food. But if those changes become law, she says, “Children and elderly people will go hungry.” And farmers like her will likely be among the first to feel the sting. Top photo: Farmer Joe Cooley Talks with Customer at the Mt. Pleasant Island Park Farmers Market. (Photo CC-licensed by the ). It's outrageous that congress would require receiving SNAP benefits be contingent on a work training program for people, including farmers, who are self-employed.

This is insanity, as are the vast majority of bills introduced by this administration. Please continue to do everything possible to STOP the house version of the farm bill from becoming law. The biggest hurdle for this, as well as so many other horrific bills, is the amount of dollars that corporations are paying to MOC to support them. If I had superpowers, I would make every congressperson go on TANF and SNAP as their only means to survive in America for one year. That would probably change what's happening in Washington DC in a hurry.