HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » GOP Rep Describes Pushing...

Wed May 9, 2012, 10:58 AM

GOP Rep Describes Pushing 300k Children Off Lunch Program... As "Trimming The Fat"

GOP Rep Describes Pushing 300k Children Off Lunch Program To Protect Military Spending As "Trimming The Fat"
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/927070/gop_rep_describes_pushing_300k_children_off_lunch_program_to_protect_military_spending_as_%22trimming_the_fat%22/

Yesterday, House Republicans moved legislation forward aimed at preventing any reductions in military spending, even if that means cutting much needed programs for the nation’s poorest. The House Armed Services Committee’s bill provides $554 billion for the Pentagon — $29 billion more than DOD had requested — while the GOP-led Budget Committee packaged six bills that would “slice $261 billion from food stamps, Medicaid, social services and other programs for struggling Americans.”

Last night on Fox News, House Majoriy Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) claimed that the Republicans were just trimming the fat from the budget and getting rid of wasteful spending:

VAN SUSTEREN: But these cuts — I mean, these cuts — I mean, some of the cuts, I mean, just — you know, there are — there’s money sitting in our government. There’s some fat that we can.. some of these cuts. I mean — the fat is incredible!

MCCARTHY: Then you would support what we’re doing. That’s we’re doing committee by committee!

So what does McCarthy and the GOP consider budget fat? The New York Times today offered some details:

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would push 1.8 million people off food stamps and could cost 280,000 children their school lunch subsidies and 300,000 children their health insurance coverage through the federal and state Children’s Health Insurance Program. Elimination of the social services block grant to state and local governments would hit child abuse prevention programs, Meals on Wheels and child care.

A further 23 million would be affected by the repeal of the Social Services Block Grant, which helps fund child care and disability assistance to low-income Americans.

In fact, eliminating the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would more than provide the savings the Republicans are seeking, twice over.

<<snip>>

9 replies, 2551 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 9 replies Author Time Post
Reply GOP Rep Describes Pushing 300k Children Off Lunch Program... As "Trimming The Fat" (Original post)
dajoki May 2012 OP
Fawke Em May 2012 #1
atreides1 May 2012 #2
zbdent May 2012 #3
Swede Atlanta May 2012 #4
kentuck May 2012 #5
FSogol May 2012 #6
ProgressiveEconomist May 2012 #7
librechik May 2012 #8
Bake May 2012 #9

Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:00 AM

1. Van Sustern sounds like a doddering fool.

Read her quote - it makes no sense.

That said, McCarthy's quote made sense in that it's readable, but he's an evil asshole for equating the cutting off of funding to needy children is merely trimming the fat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:15 AM

2. My question

Who will be the first Republican to refer to their attacks on the poor as the "final solution"?

McCarthy, Ryan, Boehner, maybe even Cantor?

Any bets?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 11:44 AM

3. if we truly had a "liberally-biased media", "wasteful spending" would be reported as

subsidizing the oil industry ... giving them taxpayer dollars, while the industry makes record profits, on the backs of the very same taxpayers ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:07 PM

4. This is a fundamental difference between the parties....

 

The Republicans see extending a helping hand to the less fortunate as "fat" but giving huge tax breaks to the wealthy as moral.

I knew they would not want the automatic cuts on the military to go into effect. I suggest we let them stew in their own juices for a while. Our military could be cut by 50% and we would never miss it. It would not lessen our ability to defend the homeland. It might impact our ability to play global policeman but not defending the homeland which is what the military should do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:12 PM

5. Democrats need to postpone talking about these issues...

and go after these folks in a personal way. They need to be held personally responsible for their positions.

The same goes for Mitt Romney. He is a liar. He is out of touch with average Americans. He cheats on paying his fair share of taxes by hiding his money in Swiss accounts and in the Cayman islands. People understand personal issues much more than political issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kentuck (Reply #5)

Wed May 9, 2012, 12:14 PM

6. +100 n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:00 PM

7. IMO this is Republican Step 2 on HUNGER. Step 1 was banning the word 'HUNGER'

from USDA reports, a GW Bush priority accomplished in 2006.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501621.html

"Some Americans Lack Food, but USDA Won't Call Them Hungry

By Elizabeth Williamson, Washington Post Staff Writer; November 16, 2006

The U.S. government has vowed that Americans will never be hungry again. But they may experience 'very low food security.' Every year, the Agriculture Department issues a report that measures Americans' access to food, and it has consistently used the word 'hunger' to describe those who can least afford to put food on the table. But not this year.

Mark Nord, the lead author of the report, said 'hungry' is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured in the food security survey." Nord, a USDA sociologist, said, 'We don't have a measure of that condition.' The USDA said that 12 percent of Americans -- 35 million people -- could not put food on the table at least part of last year. Eleven million of them reported going hungry at times. Beginning this year, the USDA has determined 'very low food security' to be a more scientifically palatable description for that group. ...

Three years ago, the USDA asked the Committee on National Statistics of the National Academies "to ensure that the measurement methods USDA uses to assess households' access -- or lack of access -- to adequate food and the language used to describe those conditions are conceptually and operationally sound." Among several recommendations, the panel suggested that the USDA scrap the word hunger, which "should refer to a potential consequence of food insecurity that, because of prolonged, involuntary lack of food, results in discomfort, illness, weakness, or pain that goes beyond the usual uneasy sensation." ...

Anti-hunger advocates say the new words sugarcoat a national shame. 'The proposal to remove the word 'hunger' from our official reports is a huge disservice to the millions of Americans who struggle daily to feed themselves and their families,' said David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World, an anti-hunger advocacy group. 'We . . . cannot hide the reality of hunger among our citizens.'..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveEconomist (Reply #7)

Wed May 9, 2012, 02:07 PM

8. +100! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dajoki (Original post)

Wed May 9, 2012, 03:40 PM

9. If the GOP wants to trim some fat, start with Christie and Limpballs!

Ahem. That is all.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread