Why food stamp cuts?

[Joe Fields]

It's getting harder, as every day blends into the next, for me to work up any outrage. The Bush years exhausted my supply. Nowadays, every once in awhile I have to go next door to borrow a cup of it. But this morning I was able to find an infinitesimal amount of outrage in my reserve outrage tank.

Yesterday, the House pushed through a 26 billion dollar jobs bill, which the president quickly signed. How will it be paid for? Mainly through the closing of tax loopholes, which multi-national corporations enjoy (which is highly commendable, and way way overdue)AND the cutting of foodstamp benefits. When I read that last part, in the article in my daily newspaper, I literally had a WTF? moment.

Food stamp cuts? You've got to be effing kidding me! And that's how our asshole lawmakers think is THE ONLY way we can pay to help states save roughly 300,000 jobs in the teaching and law enforcement sectors?

Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for saving jobs of any kind, especially teachers, and first responders, but really, this is simply outrageous.

So, let's juxtapose the action of our asshole legislators against a front page article from the same daily rag (The Kansas City Star) that appeared JUST YESTERDAY!!! The article was titled "Feeding a Rising Need." This article illustrates the rising number of food stamp recipients. According to the article, more than 40.8 million people are now on foodstamps. That's 13 percent of our country's population. Nationwide, the number of people receiving foodstamps jumped 19 percent, from May of 2009 to May of this year. And food pantries, ran by private organizations like Harvesters, are feeling a major strain. Harvesters has reported that the agencies in its network now serve 44 percent more people than they did in 2005. In many areas around the country, the desperate rush for food is so great that lines of people form overnight, all waiting for pantries to open up. By noon there isn't much left to give away.

With so many people in this country out of work, unable to work, unable to make ends meet, and even homeless, nobody can tell me with a straight face, that THE ONLY way we can pay to save jobs is to partially place that burden on the backs of the misfortunate, to take the food out of the mouths of those begging for food. This feels so Dickensian.

A BIG FUCK YOU to our asshole lawmakers. May (almost all) burn in hell.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R

[LWolf]

2. Why? Because Obama threatened to veto any bill that

transferred RTTT funds to an effort to keep classrooms staffed.

Union busting and privatizing is protected.

Food stamps aren't.

His priorities are clear.

[Joe Fields]

3. His priorities were clear to me before he became president.

[LWolf]

4. Crystal.

Which is why I did not support his nomination.

[SammyWinstonJack]

7. His 'priorities' suck.

[LWolf]

9. They do.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LWolf]

48. Lying? Me? You know better.

The president has promised to veto the bill over its proposed cuts to his school-reform initiatives, including $100 million in charter school funding, $200 million in Teacher Incentive Fund money, and $500 million from RTTT.

“We do not believe that taking money out of that important investment makes any sense at all,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, referring to RTTT in particular. “The president’s been clear with Congress that that doesn’t make any sense at all.”

The rebuke marks an unusually public clash between the White House and President Obama’s top Democratic allies in the House, including Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House appropriations committee, who introduced the education jobs provision.

http://www.eschoolnews.com/2010/07/18/where-to-find-mor... /

Other sources:

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/david_obey_obama...

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2010/07/no...

http://www.examiner.com/x-36525-Chicago-K12-Examiner~y2...

[geek tragedy]

51. Please pay attention. We're talking about the jobs bill, not the education bill.

Nice try, but this smear is more obviously false than your typical efforts.

P.S. Even the language you quoted--about a DIFFERENT FUCKING BILL--doesn't cite deficit neutrality as a reason for the threatened veto.

So, yes, I know better--than you.

[LWolf]

52. Bullshit.

The bill that he signed is H.R.1586 - Education Jobs and Medicaid Assistance Act.

The bottom line? He threatened to veto the bill to save educators jobs if the money came from RTTT.

He did not threaten to veto the bill if the money came from cuts to food stamps.

[geek tragedy]

54. Innumeracy.

RTTT: $3.6 Billion in remaining funds

Expenditures for teacher jobs: $10 Billion

Even if Obama had gone way beyond what Obey wanted (a mere $800 Million) and threw every single penny of RTTT into the pot, it still wouldn't have been enough to cover the money necessary for the teachers' jobs.

[LWolf]

55. It wasn't the only funding source, obviously.

But food stamps weren't on the block until it got to the Senate. Are you suggesting that his threat to veto the bill if cuts to RTTT were included had no effect on the Senate's removing the RTTT cuts and adding food stamp cuts?

Someone else down thread posted some of Obey's comments about the food stamp cuts.

And, of course, while you failed to note it, I am talking about the correct bill.

[geek tragedy]

56. You were talking about a House committee vote on

educational appropriations as opposed to a vote on a bill that touched on education, Medicaid, food stamps, police, firefighters, and closing a tax loophole for exporting jobs.

You also ignored the repeated Republican filibusters of jobs bills--this funding had been thwarted by Republicans all summer.

[LWolf]

57. Nope.

Please note a couple of things.

1. The threat to veto a bill that cut RTTT funds is real.

2. So is the WH's expressed preference for cutting food stamps.

3. Efforts to come up with funding to save jobs were made more than once, until finally achieved.

4. #s 1 & 2 were in play the whole time.

[mike r]

5. If they can't afford to eat, then they can't afford to vote

which is what they're saying.

[Donnachaidh]

6. ahh, but the kids will be sent to school, in hopes of being FED

So the numbers will be good for that RTTT program and voila! Mission Accomplished! Yet another *historic* program does good!


While the rest of the family goes without.....

[Winterblues]

29. In reality the poor rarely vote

neither do those under twenty five.

[laughingliberal]

34. I believe that answers the question in the OP. nt

[Joe Fields]

37. Um, it was a rhetorical question. n/t

[laughingliberal]

44. And a darned good one, at that! nt

[hobbit709]

8. When the starving peasants come to the palace gates and say

"Little Father, give us food"

[mcollins]

16. too bad they are in Spain. nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

25. A tsarist reference!

Love it!

And, based on the latest brouhaha alone, the top of our government will (re)act much like the last tsar's.
Trillions of taxpayer money for Wall Street's gambling debts, nothing but a kick in the teeth for the poor.

[hobbit709]

28. In a book I read once

It stated that for centuries, the tsars cruelly oppressed the peasants. But the peasants believed that the tsar didn't know how his nobles were treating the peasants. They believed that if they could get to the tsar and tell him, he would stop it. So occasionally the tsar stepped on some of the worst offenders among the nobility and the peasants went away happy thinking that the "Little Father" cared about them. This went on for centuries until the last tsar. He was openly contemptuous of the peasants even when they petitioned him. That is why he was the LAST tsar.

[PufPuf23]

50. This is a good description of reality.

The scapegoat for the masses is a critical element.

Thanks.

[whistler162]

10. Guess no one actually saw that the cuts take affect in 4 YEARS

So they will have to find the money to replace it in 4 years when the cut to Food Stamps takes affect.

"Weill's group estimated that a family of four that may now receive about $464 a month in food stamps stood to lose about $59. Democrats gave assurances that they would look for other ways to pay for the law before the payment cuts go into effect in four years."


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100810/ap_on_bi_ge/us_jobs...

EPIC FAIL!!!!

[Donnachaidh]

15. you mean like they were going to go back and *fix* healthcare reform?

Yeah, we saw it -- doesn't mean shit considering the promises to fix things keeps piling up with NO fixes.....

[Joe Fields]

27. So, tell me, what difference does that make? Does that make

what the lawmakers did alright? Again, why should the burden be placed on the backs of the already suffering?

[geek tragedy]

47. Because they're going to be put the money back.

It was taken out of stimulus funding. Also, the idea is that you prevent people from needing food stamp money by keeping them employed.

[Joe Fields]

58. There is no defense of that position.

First, you assume that the money will be put back, because our oh so trustworthy politicians say so. Secondly, it doesn't seem to bother you at all that they are taking money earmarked for food stamps. Food stamps? Of all the places they could look to find the money, why tread on the poor? That is just morally wrong.

[NickB79]

31. At the rate we're going, 4 years from now half the country will need food stamps. NT

[backscatter712]

36. BINGO!

We get money now for the states to stop layoffs, then in a couple years, restoration of the food-stamp funding will be buried in some appropriations bill when nobody's paying attention.

Hey, works for me.

[Joe Fields]

38. I think you have missed the point entirely.

Not only that, but do you believe the politicians that say they will restore those lost benefits?

[SargeUNN]

11. Well It is a sad day for sure

I get $80 a month in food stamps right now and my income is just under $630 a month. Fortunately I am a service connected disabled veteran so I have the VA for healthcare. This cut will certainly push me to the edge if not over the edge on being able to make it. I already had to give up my internet, no television, sit in the dark at night, and thanks to some help from a friend I am able to get online at their place, they take me to places where I can buy cheaper, and cook meals I can freeze and eat later. At times they have paid for food to help me have enough to eat and now I am really concerned how much longer I can survive without having to give up living by myself.

Thanks lawmakers for this and by the way don't ever tell me thanks for my service, because it is clear you don't appreciate it.

[Joe Fields]

17. 80 bucks a month is pathetic for your income.

Half the people I know, and some I work with are on food stamps and all say the same thing, that they really have to be creative to make them last until the end of the month, with a few even fasting for a few days each month. It saddens and angers me to see what is becoming of our country.

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. I've called a lot of republican representatives and hated it when they said thanks for my service.

When I call any representative I always preface the reason for calling by saying I'm a veteran. It's one way to avoid being hung up on instantly. I usually say my piece and at the end of the call I say politely that the representative/senator doesn't really care about veterans like me and have a reason to prove my point. I know republican representatives don't really give a damn about veterans or any of the problems they have. I've even confronted some of them saying if they gave a damn about veterans they wouldn't have sent soldiers to die in two countries which never could have attacked us. And then I say if you cared about soldiers you would have given them body armor and armored vehicles to protect them before even sending them to war. And I'd say they don't give a damn about the suicide rate or the problems veterans are having with PTSD because almost no republican served in the military and especially in combat.

I know, it might sound petty but I hate it when insincere representatives or their staffs sounding like robots as they thank me for my service, when I can tell they are just mouthing off something completely insincere. If they supported our soldiers they wouldn't send them to foreign countries to be slaughtered as low paid mercenaries only fighting and dying to protect the financial interests of corrupt corporations.

Having said the above, I deeply appreciate others who show gratitude to soldiers and veterans. I can tell if a person is sincere or not. And when I call republican officeholders I know they aren't.

[Mr Deist]

59. Broad Brush serves nobody

Look, the terms of service on this site ask that you "Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements." Stating that all Republican officeholders don't appreciate Veterans or are “insincere” is broad brush.

In public discussions, it is important to be true to the facts. Ask yourself, when you complain that "almost no Republicans have served in the military and especially in combat," have any of the Democratic leaders (Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama) even worn a uniform? Have they completed one day of basic training? Do you really think they have any idea what it is like to be a Soldier?

And I'm not saying you have to serve in the Armed Forces to be a good leader on military or Veterans issues but let's get the facts straight. Fine, you don't like Republicans - OK. There are a lot of Republicans I don't like. Many are lousy leaders. But hey, we, as citizens, have similar problems with Democrats and Independents. At the same time, we are really lucky to have some fantastic leaders on both sides of the aisle who do care and do try to make government work.

My thought, in reading your post, is to take a breath and relax. Republicans are not out to get you. They don't wake up every day working on ways to screw Veterans. Just like Democrats don't wake up every day working on ways to destroy American businesses. Both stereotypes are a bunch of baloney and we would be so much better off if we could discuss the facts rather than paint the parties with broad brushes (which I would contend is against the TOS of this site).

[laughingliberal]

35. +1 nt

[ThomWV]

12. Why foodstamp cuts? Easiest answer in the world, because the poor have no voice in Government.

[Joe Fields]

14. what government? looks more like a cabal to me.

[rucky]

13. Hungry people don't hire lobbyists. n/t

[Barack2theFuture]

19. goddamned freeloading poor people

who says they have a right to eat.

[ProSense]

20. They did not cut food stamps.

The cut was made by putting an end date on the stimulus increases for the program.

[fogonthelake]

22. The effect will be the same. In the less, less $ for food stamps.

[ProSense]

23. No it will not be,

no more than eliminating the extra $25 increase to unemployment benefits changes that structure. This food stamp increases continue until after 2014.

[fogonthelake]

32. where does it say the INCREASE will continue after 2014?

[NickB79]

33. Does inflation stop after 2014 too?

Because food prices are going to keep rising, and if food stamps don't keep pace, that is effectively a CUT in food stamps.

[chimpymustgo]

39. Very Reaganesque argument. But Obama so admires him...understandable, I guess

[Joe Fields]

40. My thoughts exactly.

[laughingliberal]

46. +1 nt

[Joe Fields]

24. when you reduce benefits, I call that cuts. You can play word games,

but real people that have to use food stamps every month will feel the pinch.

[Cherchez la Femme]

26. +101

[laughingliberal]

41. I like what David Obey said about that:

Their line of argument was, well, the cost of food relative to what we thought it would be has come down, so people on food stamps are getting a pretty good deal in comparison to what we thought they were going to get. Well isn’t that nice. Some poor bastard is going to get a break for a change.

I also liked what he said here:

The secretary of education is whining about the fact he only got 85 percent of the money he wanted .… hen we needed money, we committed the cardinal sin of treating him like any other mere mortal. We were giving them over $10 billion in money to help keep teachers on the job, plus another $5 billion for Pell, so he was getting $15 billion for the programs he says he cares about, and it was costing him $500 million . Now that’s a pretty damn good deal. So as far as I’m concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. He’s got more walking around money than every other cabinet secretary put together.

It blows my mind that the White House would even notice the fight . I would have expected the president to say to the secretary, “Look, you’re getting a good deal, for God’s sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isn’t going to be touched.” We gave $4.3 billion in the stimulus package, no questions asked. He could spend it any way he wants. … I trusted the secretary, so I gave him a hell of a lot more money than I should have.

My point is that I have been working for school reform long before I ever heard of the secretary of education, and long before I ever heard of Obama. And I’m happy to welcome them on the reform road, but I’ll be damned if I think the only road to reform lies in the head of the secretary of education.

http://washingtonindependent.com/91851/obey-white-house...

[kenny blankenship]

21. To force traditional Democrats into slapping one constituency group or another in the face

Want to pay teachers? Ok fine, Mister Ivory Tower Liberal, take food out of their students' mouths.
YAY DLC WIN!

Want to feed poor kids? Ok fine, Mister Bleeding Heart Liberal, grind public educators further down into the disrespected, cheated and desperate lower depths of American "society". Set their college degrees and willingness to work with America's left behind kids at an even lower value than before.
YAY DLC WIN!

You make the choice, Traditional Democrat - either way a traditional Democratic constituency gets shafted by their own representatives to preserve another, and that's a DLC WIN.

[laughingliberal]

42. +1000 nt

[TheKentuckian]

30. Because New Democrats = Old Republicans

Hippie punching and going after welfare queens.

Cutting deals with corporations and jailing activists.

Free trade and tax breaks.

Cutting Social Security and and calling for drug tests.

[geek tragedy]

45. Do any of the people ignorantly bashing the Democrats over this

realize that (1) this was made necessary by a Republican filibuster and (2) that they have four years to put the money back--not a single person will lose an ounce of food over the next three years because of this?

People are so caught up in Democrat bashing that they don't bother to do their homework and they give the Republicans a Free Pass.

[PufPuf23]

49. Salt in the wounds and a fuck you to the unfortunate.

People are most often unfortunate by circumstance.

Most unfortunate, and I would include all but mentally ill criminals, would rather have a secure, happy, and productive life. Many do not get much of a chance even in the USA and the quality of life is in decline.

OT I am still trying to rap my head around Maxine Waters having ethics violations when DiFi"s husband Richard Blum received over 8 figures in no-bid war related contract into essentially shell companies.

[yella_dawg]

53. Fed announces it will be buying federal debt.

Printing money to buy T-Bills. It's fixin' to get a lot worse.