Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why food stamp cuts?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:18 PM
Original message
Why food stamp cuts?


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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. His priorities were clear to me before he became president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Crystal.
Which is why I did not support his nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. His 'priorities' suck.
x(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. They do.
:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
43. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #43
48. Lying? Me? You know better.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:51 PM by LWolf
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 presidents been clear with Congress that that doesnt make any sense at all.

The rebuke marks an unusually public clash between the White House and President Obamas 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...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Please pay attention. We're talking about the jobs bill, not the education bill.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:53 PM by geek tragedy
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.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Bullshit.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:59 PM by LWolf
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #52
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #54
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:17 PM
Response to Reply #55
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. Nope.
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 07:48 PM by LWolf
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike r Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
5. If they can't afford to eat, then they can't afford to vote
which is what they're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
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.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Winterblues Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. In reality the poor rarely vote
neither do those under twenty five.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. I believe that answers the question in the OP. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. Um, it was a rhetorical question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. And a darned good one, at that! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
8. When the starving peasants come to the palace gates and say
"Little Father, give us food"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcollins Donating Member (506 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. too bad they are in Spain. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. A tsarist reference!
Love it! :hi:

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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. In a book I read once
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 04:00 PM by hobbit709
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. This is a good description of reality.
The scapegoat for the masses is a critical element.

Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistler162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
10. Guess no one actually saw that the cuts take affect in 4 YEARS
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 01:48 PM by whistler162
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!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #10
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #27
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #47
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. At the rate we're going, 4 years from now half the country will need food stamps. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
backscatter712 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #36
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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SargeUNN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnArmyVeteran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mr Deist Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-12-10 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #18
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).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
35. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why foodstamp cuts? Easiest answer in the world, because the poor have no voice in Government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. what government? looks more like a cabal to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hungry people don't hire lobbyists. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack2theFuture Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
19. goddamned freeloading poor people
who says they have a right to eat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
20. They did not cut food stamps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. The effect will be the same. In the less, less $ for food stamps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. No it will not be,
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:40 PM by ProSense
no more than eliminating the extra $25 increase to unemployment benefits changes that structure. This food stamp increases continue until after 2014.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fogonthelake Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. where does it say the INCREASE will continue after 2014?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #23
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. Very Reaganesque argument. But Obama so admires him...understandable, I guess
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 05:01 PM by chimpymustgo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. My thoughts exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #39
46. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #20
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. +101
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
41. I like what David Obey said about that:
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 06:41 PM by laughingliberal
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 isnt 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 thats a pretty damn good deal. So as far as Im concerned, the secretary of education should have been happy as hell. He should have taken that deal and smiled like a Cheshire cat. Hes 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, youre getting a good deal, for Gods sake, what this really does is guarantee that the rest of the money isnt 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 Im happy to welcome them on the reform road, but Ill be damned if I think the only road to reform lies in the head of the secretary of education.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
21. To force traditional Democrats into slapping one constituency group or another in the face
Edited on Wed Aug-11-10 02:45 PM by kenny blankenship
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #21
42. +1000 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
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.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-11-10 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
53. Fed announces it will be buying federal debt.
Printing money to buy T-Bills. It's fixin' to get a lot worse.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 16th 2014, 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC