Obama signs bill cutting 2.2 billion from food stamps

[no limit]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obamas-food-bill-signing-121310,0,2298518.story

With his wife by his side, President Obama on Monday signed the child nutrition bill, strongly pushed by the first lady, who has made nutrition part of her campaign to help the young get healthy.

...

The bill also increases the spending per meal by about 6 cents, President Obama noted. He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds.

So even a bill to try and make the food our children eat healthier is really just another large pile of shit. Thank you for the bang up job Mr. President.


On edit: Here is a CNN article showing the 2.2 billion figure, my apologies that the article I originally linked to mentioned the food stamp cuts but not the total figure:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/

Some Democrats had objected to the bill because it is funded in part by stripping $2.2 billion from the federal food stamp program. Congress also voted over the summer to take money from the program to fund legislation sending money to cash-strapped states to avoid teacher layoffs.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. .

.

[RufusTFirefly]

11. Here

"He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds."

Oh goody! He's going to work with Congress! That's turned out so well lately.

[originalpckelly]

33. Yeah, especially since the fucking congress will be Republican next year.

Do you really think they're going to be interested in helping poor people out with food?

[roguevalley]

183. Let's all sing it together: " SMALL CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

[earth mom]

294. Make that Chump Change we can believe in. Looks like Obama's "Let Them Eat Cake" moment.

Or make that "Let Them Eat Cat Food".

[Capitalocracy]

219. Seriously, how much is that going to cost us?

Whenever Obama works with Congress, it costs us money.

[Divernan]

258. Hey Billy, can you smuggle a crust of breat home for Grannie and your baby sister?

This cut hurts everyone without school age kids, who ostensibly will benefit by lower weekly food costs at home.

What about all the elderly who were already forced to choose between heat, medicine and food?

What about all the unemployed of any age?

What about the underpaid employed who qualify for food stamps?

What about families with pre-school age toddlers and infants?

They should all call Michele and beg to be added to the First Lady's Priorities.

[Foo Fighter]

279. Yeah, that has worked out really well, hasn't it?

Given his track record, my guess is that he will include a measure to "restore the funds" in the next Wall Street bailout bill or something similar, in order to assure the American people that the bill has "something in it for all Americans."

[Still a Democrat]

98. Administration raised Food Stamp program from $37B to $68B

Over the last two years. Yes, under the Bush administration in 2008, when the recession had already been in place for a year, total expenditures on food stamps (SNAP program) was $37,645,000. For fiscal year 2010, spending has been $68,180,000, nearly double previous spending. This was done under the stimulus package because of the recession and steep rises in unemployment, all caused by the previous administration's policies.

Yes, we're spending more than $31 billion more on food stamps today because of President Obama and the Democrats, and these higher levels will remain in place until late 2013 and 2014 -- two more years. Then, a small portion, $2 billion, will be redirected into funds for children living in poverty who receive breakfast and lunch for free every day. It will expand the number of children eligible and raise the nutritional standards for these meals.

Yet the hatred here is so deep, and the knowledge level so shallow, that this new bill, which will aid the poorest of poor children, is being used as a cudgel. I realize that real facts never prevail over grandstanding and charlatanism, but if you want to see facts and figures on government spending on nutrition assistance programs, you can read them yourself here:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/annual.htm

[mstinamotorcity]

129. Most of the real concerned folk

like to talk fiction instead of fact. Thank you for the facts. There will always be some who despite the preponderance of the evidence, will change their wittle feelings. But those same people will be commercing with the enemy as soon as they stop playing monday night keyboard warrior quarterbacking. Welcome to DU:hi: :hi: :hi:

[Skittles]

209. it's not the point

he should be cutting the WARS, not FOOD STAMPS during THIS ECONOMY

[mstinamotorcity]

235. Did I miss something????

the draw down in Iraq has been under way for a while now.Saw Richard Engel ride out with the last combat brigade. I think I remember our President saying the troops will start in Afghanistan drawing down in the coming year. And the Late Mr. Holbrook said we need to get out of Afghanistan. Which our President will deeply take into consideration.

Now the Food Stamps. Our President gave an increase as part of the stimulus plan. I think it was Twenty five dollars a person in unemployment, and around 100 dollars for a family of four in food stamp benefits according to income. Contrary to popular belief their are quite a few working families who still fall below the guidelines for food stamp assistance. The cuts you are voicing about won't take place for a couple of years. And when they say they are making a cut in the Dept. of Agriculture in the food stamp program it doesn't necessarily mean the benefits. But when you listen to anything negative its easier and faster to spread.

[walldude]

289. Here's another FACT. The number of people on food stamps

has TRIPLED since 2006. So doubling the program left a third of people out in the cold. Are'nt we getting tired of being tossed a bone to make us shut up?

Talk about monday night keyboard warrior quarterbacking bullshit.

[Jakes Progress]

297. You mean thank you for just some of the facts.

The food stamp budget was raised. Good.
The administration began a new program based on nutrition for children. Good
They funded the nutrition program with $2.2 billion taken from the food stamp budget. Bad

I would assume that the president raised the budget for food stamps because there was a perceived need. Now however many of those that can be fed with $2.2 billion will not be able to get the stamps that allow them to feed their children. Sure the new program is good. Why couldn't it be funded without taking food from poor people. I see people at the centers where I do volunteer work who can barely talk about trying to feed their children without crying. I see men sobbing into their hands, filled with desperation.

I think it is good that the government raised the budget for food stamps. it is needed. It is not the program you cut from to fund another program no matter how worthy. Can't you think of any other place they could get the money? Do you think it is a good thing to take money from one group of poor people to give to another group of poor people? Do you think that we are spending money on the food stamp program that we shouldn't be?

The families trying to feed their children make up more of a preponderance of facts for me than diddling with percentage points and pr memos.

The people that do that are the keyboard warriors.

[Rex]

134. Wow, very nice find! Maybe you should start a thread about it!

That is very good news...in a time when all we get is bad news.

[WCGreen]

136. Start a thread with this....

[Still a Democrat]

139. It's been done by another DUer and Rec'd down, sadly

It's pretty obvious folks would rather just be blind to the facts at times. I will try again.

[tblue37]

145. THANK YOU!! nt

[Jakes Progress]

269. Yeah. Now you don't have to feel bad

about the thousands of families who won't get their food stamps. We can go back to ignoring the poor.

[tomg]

154. I guess ketchup really

is a vegetable.

[NoSheep]

155. Thank you. DU used to be a place where facts were more important.

[Jakes Progress]

268. What fact is missing?

Obama okayed the transfer of $2.2 billion from one group of poor people to another group of poor people. Net gain? Zip. There will be several thousand families who do not get help putting food on the table for their children because of this. How can you think that is a good thing?

Had he sought the funds from his wall street or K street friends, the ones he does so much for, it would have been a good thing.

How do you like those facts.

[no limit]

156. Why did any money have to be shifted from food stamps to this program?

[SylviaD]

252. Exactly.

Why always this false dichotomy and false choice? We have to cut "a small portion" from Food Stamps to help "the poorest of the poor" get meals? We could have both! Cut from something else!!! i.e. WARS

[MNBrewer]

259. Because, you have to move money from one poor person to another

Money for the poor certainly can't come from the RICH, can it?

[Name removed]

161. Deleted message

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

[11 Bravo]

165. Facts! DU don't need no fucking facts! Obama hates poor people, and that's that!

[Name removed]

267. Deleted message

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

[JamesA1102]

170. Don't confuse the demagogues with facts nt

[Jakes Progress]

266. Yeah. Let's baffle the apologists with bullshit.

Tell 'em it's a mudpack.

There is no reason that you take $2.2 billion worth of food from this group of poor people to give to that group of poor people and claim you've done a good thing. If Obama raised the amount for food stamps in the first place because it was needed, why would he lower it? Do those hundreds of thousands of people no longer need food? Did the economy for the poor just jump up exponentially?

It is crap. It is PR. If you want to give $2 billion to people who need it, that is good. Just get if from someone besides the poor. How about getting about one fifth of one per cent from the millionaires for whom you just negotiated a huge tax bonus?

Go ahead an defend cutting off aid to a couple of hundred thousand families. Or one. Why would you want one family of children to go without food because you wanted to give it to another.

What a hypocritical crock.

[Name removed]

270. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jakes Progress]

178. What a crock of a rebuttal. The OP is at least being honest.

The OP says 2.2 billion was cut. That is money that will not be available to people to feed their children. The fact that it will feed some other children doesn't make it right.

Why did this administration raise the funding for food stamps? Did they think the increase was a good thing? Did they think it was $2.2 billion too much of a good thing? Why can't Obama ever find the money for his pet projects someplace other than the poor? Couldn't he have "negotiated" and "dealt" with the republicans to get that $2 billion, which you call a "small portion" from some place else. How about one fifth of one percent of the money he just traded away to America's millionaires?

Why was it necessary to cut one good program for another? I know a man who needs a car to go to work. I'll take yours. Then he can get to work. See? That sounds good, right?

Do you know how many people won't be eating because of this? Do you know how many families $2.2 billion dollars feeds? Don't you care that those families will now do without?

As I said. Your rebuttal was a crock and an attempt at diverting the real blame. Stop calling people haters because they tell the truth.

[Capn Sunshine]

181. Nice try

but those that are full of it are still full of it.

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[Forkboy]

277. Maybe you can explain this to me, since no one else can.

A year and half ago I got $162/month in food stamps. Today I get $30/month. Why? I asked my case worker and she said it was due to government cuts, because my income didn't change a single penny. Is she mistaken, lying, or what? Not trying to be snarky, but you seem sure of this, so I'm hoping you'll have an answer that no one else has been able to provide so far.

[Jakes Progress]

283. Not a nice try.

No information. No discussion of the issues. Do you know what is happening well enough to actually discuss it?

How about some antecedents for you pronouns.

[guruoo]

192. "When you find yourself in a hole,

quit digging."

[SylviaD]

253. hear hear!!!

Bravo.

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

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

[roguevalley]

185. then don't come. freedom of speech means speech you don't

like. constitution, remember? Oh wait. That's one of those 'quaint' documents.

[Hoyt]

186. Thanks for the facts. Too bad so many won't read/listen.

[Number23]

Welcome to DU -- home of deep hatred and shallow knowledge.

Yet the hatred here is so deep, and the knowledge level so shallow, that this new bill, which will aid the poorest of poor children, is being used as a cudgel.

You absolutely nailed it. Thanks so much for your post. :hi:

[Jakes Progress]

273. A lot of shallow thinking but not on this sorry bill.

The bill itself is just fine. Nobel even. Financing it with food stamp funds is just nasty. You love jumping up and down about how it is only $2.2 billion out of $30 billion. Do you realize how many families will do without food because of that $2.2 billion. You give $700 billions to millionaires and finance a nutrition bill by taking food from tens of thousands of poor people. That is bad. But to crow about how noble you are because if it is worse.

That is nailing it. All the post you praise does is slather plaster over the pain and anguish that will come.

[Name removed]

274. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

276. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

280. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

281. Deleted message

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

[upi402]

196. More folks are ON food stamps now than in 2008

I thought that was the reason spending is up... more people are desperate.

Maybe times are good, I dunno, maybe I need to get out more!

[Swagman]

197. wow-a headline can really colour the truth

[caseymoz]

202. It's not hatred or charlatanism.

It's waiting for the next shoe to drop, except instead of a shoe, it's bomb. Obama has dismantled the little trust he had left with this tax/social security compromise. That's why people think the worst when it comes out that he cut another deal, especially given that headline.

People are pissed at him, and it's not because of charlatanism. He really has taken a lead pipe to any good expectations.

And, oh, you are right, thank you for the information. It will hold back anger till Obama screws up or stabs us in the back again.

[DaDeacon]

207. Thank You for Showing the facts

I stopped posting fact checks here a while back because this has become "hit the guy in oval office' message board; no mater who is in the office. You will no doubt catch hellfor what you post but good looking out chief.

[fasttense]

225. I thought I read that the funding cuts in food stamps would not take affect until 2014.

Your chart does not provide that information.

[rpannier]

229. Thanks for the Info

Always interested in getting information
I've become more and more skeptical of the administration, but I like to see good things posted as well.

I'll be able to follow this issue more closely thanks to input from people like you.

[pokercat999]

233. Fine, but WHY did he raise the funds for food stamps? Because

the middle class economy has been destroyed by the rich and their puppets in congress, both sides. The food stamp program wasn't increased because it was just a good place to dump 31 billion dollars 10% unemployment (actually 17%) and 26% un and under employment means people need help. Killing people in the middle east could have been stopped for this maybe? The tax cut for the rich could have been 2.8% instead of 3%?

I'm very fortunate to have a family income that puts us solidly in the middle class. I don't mind the taxes we pay if they are used for good, however with the way our government spends money much more for destruction and much less for good I avoid giving them every cent I can.

[PhillySane]

239. Let them eat Fruit!

[COLGATE4]

108. It used to be called 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'

[Donnachaidh]

128. shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic

three card monti, etc.

[TBF]

173. +1 nt

[myrna minx]

2. At least the Koch brothers are getting the tax cuts, which is all that really matters after all.

:woohoo:

[KansDem]

10. That's so they'll have a little more to fund their next astro-turf "Tea Party" poutrage...

...probably in 2012.

[no limit]

3. Here is a CNN article showing the 2.2 billion cut

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/

[Divernan]

251. Cuts largely negate the 2009 food stamp increase.

From the CNN link above:
"Some Democrats had objected to the bill because it is funded in part by stripping $2.2 billion from the federal food stamp program. Congress also voted over the summer to take money from the program to fund legislation sending money to cash-strapped states to avoid teacher layoffs.

THE CUTS LARGELY NEGATE A SPENDING INCREASE PROVIDED TO THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM BY THE 2009 ECONOMIC STIMULUS PLAN. Administration officials reportedly have promised anxious liberals that they will work to find ways to restore the higher funding levels."

What happens to food stamp recipients who DON'T have children in schools to provide the much touted "savings" to their weekly food expenses. Like senior citizens, the childleses unemployed, and families with pre-school toddlers and infants?

If a $2.2 billion cut is okey-dokey, why are Obama and "administration officials" promising they will try to restore the funding levels? Not that they have a chance in hell with the GOP control of the congress.

[NV Whino]

There's a saying that covers this

It's called, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I am beyond disgusted at this point.

[bobbolink]

17. Disgust in the norm, now. So, what are we going to do with our disgust at cuts on poor people??????

[awoke_in_2003]

203. "what are we going to do"...

probably going to debate the merits of the voting on "Dancing with the stars" while congress makes sure people like Paris Hilton live the nice, comfy life her position demands. Oh, and find a way to wage continuous war. We must keep our priorities straight.

[SoCalDem]

22. 1 extra carrot stick in school lunch, in exchange for Mom losing $10 in food stamps

:(

[Divernan]

247. Can someone explain this to Michele Obama?

It's just peachy that she got photo ops.

[originalpckelly]

4. The hypocrisy of this nonsense shall not go unnoticed for long.

If he was so fucking committed to food stamps money, why isn't it just in the fucking first bill?

[jtown1123]

54. There are still people in DU who will jump down anyone's throat who criticizes

Obama. This shit is unbelievable. It's time for everyone to wake up.

[snooper2]

138. There are still people on DU who respond to articles without all the facts

oh wait..

There will always be people on DU who respond to articles without any/all of the facts :)

[nc4bo]

5. In the meantime, while waiting to work with Congress, how many children will go without food?

Robbing baby Peter to pay to feed baby Paul, better?

Oy vie. We're upside down here.

[roguevalley]

187. you are not sypposed to notice that, nc4bo. we're all supposed to

just watch the shiny people telling us to pull our belts in and not notice the lies, thievery and bullshit.

[Missy Vixen]

Am I the only one that notes those who need nutritious

food the most probably just got cut off food stamps to pay for the above program?

[bobbolink]

25. Great chess move, isn't it?

[originalpckelly]

30. And the same fuckers, and I do mean fuckers, want tax cuts for the rich.

Cut a program for poor people, a program that I have been on, I know what they're getting now is not even close to enough, and these SOBs want to fuck with it even more.

[sad sally]

167. Wait until the cuts start happening to pay for this so-called 2% payroll holiday.

And forget about that little $250 for 50 million seniors and disabled veterans. Oh yeah, and there's no inflation in fact hasn't been any since 2008!

[awoke_in_2003]

204. they want it ALL...

they want the money from all of our social safety nets, the want the money from Social Security, they want the $1.35 that is in my pocket RIGHT THE FUCK NOW. They are uncaring carnivores- they will never be satisfied, they will never be quenched.

[FrancisTreptoe]

79. Exactly

and now that their food stamps are cut they will be eating more cheap unhealthy foods or fast food. Completely Counterproductive.

[awoke_in_2003]

205. "Completely Counterproductive"...

depends on your perspective. From their prospective this is great- more folks dying, less folks to worry about. If you gave Bill Gates (or any of his ilk) the opportunity to make $1, on the condition that he had to watch your child die- guess who is going to win that scenario.

[reggie the dog]

222. i doubt gates would waste his time for a dollar

[awoke_in_2003]

271. true, but the principle remains. nt

[quaker bill]

226. The cut does not happen until 2013-2014.

if the ecomony actually recovers, the funds won't be needed. If it doesn't, we will have far larger problems to deal with than a 3 percent cut in food stamp spending.

[Divernan]

255. Anyone w/out school age kids LOSES under this action

The elderly, the unemployed of all ages and families with pre-school infants and toddlers.

The latter could ask their school age kids to smuggle something home for their younger sibs.

[quinnox]

6. A preview of whats to come no doubt

Have to take money from one social program to give to another. Don't have any money to fund these programs because these tax cuts for super rich and middle class have the priority don't you know.

Unbelievable.

[bobbolink]

24. What's to come? Its also what has already come...and gone. The Great Disability Purge has gone

unnoticed.

The deaths from that will also be unnoticed. :shrug:

[Scurrilous]

7. "Obama signs bill cutting 2.2 billion from food stamps"

I can't find that part in the article.

:shrug:

[no limit]

9. Here is a CNN article that mentions the figure

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/

Sorry, should have used a better article.

[nc4bo]

13. Right here..

The bill also increases the spending per meal by about 6 cents, President Obama noted. He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds.

[awoke_in_2003]

206. wow, a whopping 6 cents...

that might buy what? A piece of celery?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[originalpckelly]

21. OP is right about the figure, just didn't include the other article about it with the number in it.

Just look a post or two above and you'll find it.

[no limit]

23. In what way am I fibbing?

[originalpckelly]

27. Edit you OP to include the CNN article too.

You're not fibbing, but the numbers you posted came from a different article than the one you linked to. You can tell you've been reading about this. Thanks. I would never have noticed this shit.

[Ichingcarpenter]

35. Yes edit it and include the other article in it otherwise

You'll keep getting those "I don't see that' posts.

Imagine ..... if we took the money from the Defense dept..

Now the kids can bring home some food from school to their family who lost their food stamps

[originalpckelly]

45. I have been on food stamps, what people get now is not enough.

I was on them within the last year, when the stimulus increased the amount you get. It was simply not enough. We had to buy shitty unhealthy cheap food, because a lot of the healthy stuff simply costs more.

AND NOW THEY WANT TO CUT IT IN ANY WAY!??!!??!

[bobbolink]

132. And add to that... for every Federal dollar spent on Food Stamps, $1.74 is returned to the local

economy.

But, we can't have *THAT* sort of effective stimulus, now can we?

:nuke:

[awoke_in_2003]

210. I would bet it is more...

than $1.74. When it comes to cold hard cash, every one dollar generates $5 back into the economy. Food stamps can't be that far behind- I would wager $3 easy.

[bobbolink]

246. If you could find figures on that, I would really appreciate it!

Thanks! :yourock:

edited to say.... the figures on subsidized housing would indicate that that is the case.

[awoke_in_2003]

208. as a child, we were on food stamps...

even back then (late 70's, early 80's) it was not enough. Too many people who "poo-poo" this shit have NEVER gone to bed hungry. Have never gone to school hungry. Have never been so embarrassed about being on the free lunch program that a lot of times they didn't even eat at school. Lack of nutrition causes many health, neurological, and psychological problems later in life. But we have to worry about whether or not the Walton Kids are getting a fair shake.

[eilen]

234. We were on food stamps too. They also gave out food

remember the government cheese? We loved it.

We also did the free lunch program. When my son was little, we had a free lunch program at the school during the summer. Parents could take their kids to the school cafeteria but only the kids could eat anything. Still, they threw away a great amount of food. The parents should have been able to eat what their kids wouldn't.

One objection I have about this school lunch program is that it isn't even really healthy food they are given. It is all Dept. of Ag processed stuff that is unhealthy. I'd prefer to see money put in block grants to inner city schools to partner with organic farmers for healthy food-- but then, no school even prepares their own food anymore, it is all frozen, canned and in dehydrated flake form. The "fresh" fruit is usually old.

Even in suburban schools -- the lunches are pizza, sliders, fries.

[Ichingcarpenter]

265. Rice and Beans

That's a staple, but be sure to buy your own beans, soak them, then cook them.

Some protein and carbs.

Been there done that...
Hunger will ultimately, break down any social system... Look at Rome, or China in the 30s.

[reggie the dog]

223. many of my students in chicago were on food stamps

many of my gangster students were gangsters to help feed their mom, brothers, sisters and themselves. i asked one kid why he put more effort into gangbanging instead of his studies and he reponded with "my momma aint gonna prostitue herself no more, i da man of the family, i buy us food when the stamps run out, i pay for glasses for my sister, braces for my brother and mamma aint never gonna be on the stroll again", other gangster students chimed in and agreed. but sshhhh gangster kids are not supposed to have hearts so we better not talk about that too much...

[midnight]

193. Wonderful point..... It is hard to swallow taking food from

our most vulnerable families and shifting that food to their school....

[bobbolink]

29. alert on that language.. it is an attack.

[dionysus]

32. a viscious, viscious attack.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[bvar22]

87. Social Programs being dismantled, Food Stamps CUT by $2.2 BILLION,

and you're rolling on the floor laughing.
:eyes:

[Forkboy]

95. +1

[bobbolink]

96. Yes, that is the attitude of "the new democrat". Its out in the open, for all to see.

Thank you for pointing it out.

[awoke_in_2003]

211. bvar is good people...

I really hate that term "new democrat". To me it means- "Republican wanna-be shithead" (please excuse my French)

[somone]

8. But the deficit is getting out of control!

:sarcasm:

[bobbolink]

31. Yes, and we poor folk will be the ones sacrificed. Humorous, isn't it?

We are laughing about it all the time.

[awoke_in_2003]

213. the poor will be sacrificed...

and no one will say "boo". The media never brings up their plight, and the majority of America are just trying to "get by". Living the "American Dream", thinking that one day they will be "Movin' On Up". Politicians won't bring up the problem, because they are too busy pandering to the "middle class" vote (while doing the bidding of their true masters). No one EVER speaks up for the poor- well, one did, but he couldn't keep it in his pants while his wife was dying of cancer (FU John Edwards).

[kestrel91316]

12. Cut food stamps so we can afford to give the 2%ers their ongoing tax break.

Yeah. THAT'S what being a Democrat is all about.

[awoke_in_2003]

214. and don't forget...

crippling the Inheritance Tax. Wouldn't want poor Paris Hilton to mingle with us commoners.

[ProudDad]

14. Have you noticed that now Social Spending is now a zero-sum game

whereas the war machine, corporate welfare and tax breaks for the rich is a constantly expanding expense?

Gee, wonder how the two right-wings of the Corporate War Party made that happen?

[mmonk]

37. That's because there's no money in it for the politicians.

[Lorien]

182. It's impossible not to notice

the willfully obtuse are trying very hard to, of course, but it's horrifically obvious to everyone else.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

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

[dionysus]

20. well, it might help if the article the OP linked to even mentioned food stamps.

real clever term, "zombies"...
:shrug:

[no limit]

26. It did mention foodstamps. You not reading it is not my problem

furthermore I posted a CNN article 3 times now in this thread showing the 2.2 billion figure. But by all means, shoot the messenger.

[dionysus]

28. oh... whoops.

[no limit]

39. So now that we got you calling me a liar out of the way you got any opinions on the actual bill?

Knowing that it cuts 2.2 billion from food stamps?

[quinnox]

46. good luck with that

I don't think that one ever comments except to cheer the president. Criticizing this president or what he does is not in their vocabulary.

[no limit]

83. I just wanted to repeat myself incase you missed it

you called me a liar, multiple times in this thread. When it was clear I wasn't lying now you don't have anything more to add?

Like I said, your opinion on this bill would be nice.

[dionysus]

125. ok, i read the second link from the OP which i didnt see the first time.

It appears they shuffled money from food stamp program from the 2009 stimulous to pay for this initiative.

they should have found the money elsewhere.

[displacedvermoter]

293. You forgot your laughing thingee!

[Name removed]

220. Deleted message

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

[Life Long Dem]

71. Limiting junk food in schools is a "nanny state run amok."

Said Sarah Palin. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101203/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_child_nutrition

[awoke_in_2003]

215. I didn't click on the link...

but if Sarah Palin said it all I have to say is "Fuck Sarah Palin".

[creeksneakers2]

76. Zombies believe what they want and don't read

From the CNN article:

"The cuts largely negate a spending increase provided to the food stamp program by the 2009 economic stimulus plan. Administration officials reportedly have promised anxious liberals that they will work to find ways to restore the higher funding levels.

Nobody is going to starve on this one. Its just puts off expanding the program.

[Autumn]

18. Yeah he's committed

to working with Congress alright.:puke: I find this kind of obscene in view of his tax breaks.

[bobbolink]

40. "Kind of obscene?" What would rank as REALLY obscene? At least with *, when things like this

were done, there was an actual outcry.

Even * couldn't get away with cutting food stamps! :nuke:

[Autumn]

51. You are so right bobbolink,

but I was trying to not pick on him. It is just so stressful to some people, you know the ones who can't handle the truth if it smacked them in the face.

[bobbolink]

60. As one of those who has been smacked in the face constantly for years, I am no longer in a mood

to molly-coddle *anyone*.

I have tried, in all kinds of ways, to get it across to the more thick-skinned. They resist all efforts, from polite mentions, to in-your-face confrontations.

What they are setting up, with their determination to ignore poor people, is inevitable riots. Then there will be all the "those people are sooo violent" slams.

I just can't dredge up any sympathy for them any more. Their hard hearts are worse than the RW.

[martymar64]

174. As a resident of Los Angeles, circa 1992, your point is right on point

It's happened before, it can happen again.

[CoffeeCat]

147. I'm beginning to think that this is why Obama is in office...

Bush couldn't get Social Security privatized--because he had the full force
of Democrats and some Independents screaming, Hell NO!". He sure as heck
wasn't going to mess with food stamps and be the evil Republican to starve
the poor.

But wait a minute! What if we have a Democrat cut these programs? A certain
number of Democrats will shut up, sit down and take it. Especially if this
President gives pretty speeches. We all know he has the Tinker Bell factor
going--so many of them just want to clap their hands and *believe!*.

If we get Obama to do the dirty work--we'll have the Republicans on board, plus
a certain number of Democrats. Those dirty liberals will be left twisting in
the wind, I tell you!

[FiveGoodMen]

168. Completely agree.

Sadly.

[Fokker Trip]

191. I totally agree.

Truly disheartening.

[awoke_in_2003]

216. Only Nixon could go to China...

only a democrat can cut holes in all of our social safety nets. Fuck, I want to smack someone, but it will do no good. The people driving this have the best security forces.

[Doctor_J]

19. We would pull the plug on Operation Enrich Halliburton & Blackwater one day early

and get the whole $2B back

[RussBLib]

34. Where are the priorities?

They could have easily funded this by cutting $2.2 billion from the obscenely bloated defense bill, but of course defense spending is a sacred cow above all others.

We have to get Obama out of there.

[originalpckelly]

38. This really is it. What planet is this man living on?

This is indefensible.

[bobbolink]

48. Good, you are righteously angry. NOW, what are you/we going to do about it?

[originalpckelly]

64. I don't know. I know I must do something, though. This can't go on any longer.

You know about 40 million are in poverty in this nation. That's a hell of a lot of people. You can't tell me that somehow, some way, we can't get them riled up and defend themselves from indifference. 2% of the population is like 6 million people. Maybe 7 million. One group outweighs the other in terms of size, but which group can command the attention of Washington better? The rich. Money is power.

[bobbolink]

90. Excuse me? You don't need to "rile" me or other poor people UP. We are riled.

What we NEED is SUPPORT from the rest of you!

Can you offer that?

[axollot]

230. You have mine. Look at the UK - they mobilized over tuition hikes

and look at how they rioted! We seem to roll over. I'm disabled AND poor. It's pretty frickin hard to get into the streets alone. =(

Cheers
Sandy

[bobbolink]

272. Thanks! Support is a rare thing on DU anymore!

:pals:

[onenote]

82. the same planet that virtually every Democrat in Congress?

Since only four Democrats voted against the bill (and only one apparently did so because of the food stamp cuts), I assume you are prepared to throw them under the same bus you are throwing the President.

Down with Bernie Sanders!! After all, if he was living on the right planet, he could have single-handedly stopped the bill passing the Senate via unanimous consent and forced a roll call vote.

Yet he didn't.

Because he doesn't live on this planet?

Or because he does, and those acting like this is "indefensible" don't.

[Windy]

41. Where is your outrage about all the people who will be cut from unemployment

and all those that will go hungry as a result if the tax bill isn't passed??????

didn't think so...

[bobbolink]

44. That has been answered many times. But YOUR missing outrage about this is duly noted.

We poor folk thank you for your generous concern.

[no limit]

52. Are you talking about the unemployment benefits the republicans were willing to pass

as long as the money got diverted from unspent stimulus funds?

Yeah, you are right, it was much better to give tax cuts to the richest americans instead of taking a few billion from stimulus funds.

[Autumn]

70. I am going to really feel sorry for them

when their UI benefits run out and they have to depend on food stamps.

[bobbolink]

99. !!!!

:applause:

[awoke_in_2003]

218. Bravo...

ps- what is your sig pic, if it isn't too painful to ask.

[awoke_in_2003]

217. can you send me the link...

where you bought your rose-colored glasses? I have been needing a pair.

[flvegan]

42. Mixed feelings.

After reading the CNN article, it looks like they're taking away part of what the prior stimulus package provided. I can't imagine that would be permanently sustainable. The positives that will be funded by this seem quite good to me.

I also freely admit that this is all I've read on this, and no specifics are provided. Therefore, I may be "head up my ass" wrong on this right now.

[no limit]

43. 2.2 billion isn't permanently sustainable while 900 billion tax cuts for the rich are?

[flvegan]

59. Is that what I said?

No, it isn't. Matter of fact, if you paid attention to other posts of mine (rather than ASSuming) you'd see that I've been highly critical of Obama's decisions in regards to the tax cuts.

See, that's a big part of DU's problem right now. So much is going on, lots to be critical of, some maybe not so much. If you're critical in one thread, you're automatically across the board a "hater" (or some other stupid catch-all word) to those that aren't critical of Obama. If you're less than critical in another, you're an apologist of one kind or another across the board.

Sucks to be a free-thinking dem, I suppose. Sooner or later, everyone thinks you suck.

[no limit]

77. I wasn't implying you believed that. My point was about Obama

He was just willing to piss 900 billion down the drain. Yet here suddenly 2.2 billion needs to be diverted from food stamps because otherwise that program would be unsustainable.

I don't buy that argument at all. They did a good thing when they increased food stamps in 2009, eventhough the funding was still under what it should have been. Now what do they do? They cut it.

[Echotrail]

47. That extra 6 cents will buy each kid a big dill pickle

If they save five they can bring them home to the family!

[Karmadillo]

53. Halliburton says it has particularly nutritious dill pickles ready to go.

nt

[Doctor_J]

73. for $3 each

[WinkyDink]

153. And past their sell-by date.

[salvorhardin]

49. I can't see where this will anything but a net loss for children of the poor

Sure, more children might get one or two solid meals a day at school because of this bill but fewer children now will get adequate nutrition at home. Also, hungry parents probably don't make for the best of parents.

[frazzled]

58. When poor kids eat breakfast and lunch every day at school ...

it's a net gain for them.

[originalpckelly]

What about the weekend? Or dinner? Don't you like to eat dinner?

[bobbolink]

123. Plus, its OK if their parents go hungry! After all, lower energy from not eating

properly couldn't POSSIBLY affect their ability to provide for their family, could it?

Do you begin to feel like there are a lot of transplants here from another site?

[Horse with no Name]

141. They are just the "New Democrats"

much like the "Old Republicans" they used to be.

[avaistheone1]

221. They are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

What they should be doing instead is cutting the Bush tax extension for the wealthy, and shutting down the wars.

[RufusTFirefly]

120. Why does it have to be a trade-off though?

I don't think anyone disputes the value of breakfast and lunch for kids in school.

But why do we have to cut food stamps to make this happen?

I know budgeting involves making tough choices, but why are the super-rich given tax breaks they don't need while working families are deprived of food that is essential?

Yes, Pres. Obama dramatically increased funding for food stamps earlier, but guess what? Those Americans who depend on food stamps (an estimated 1 in 8) have increased dramatically as well, from $26 million in 2007 to an estimated $42 million now.

[bobbolink]

126. Of course. There is a scarcity of food.

Rich folks have it all.

[bobbolink]

122. "a net gain". = "It's working out quite well for them."

:crazy:

[Divernan]

256. This hurts all the people w/out school age kids

Like the elderly, unemployed workers of ALL ages, famlies with pre-school toddlers and infants.

Hey Mary & Johnny, can you smuggle a crust of bread home from school for Grannie and your baby sister?

[Schema Thing]

50. Shouldn't this be "Obama signs bill passed by liberals in congress that cuts...."?

[no limit]

57. Sure. Whatever helps you sleep better at night.

[HuckleB]

171. Accuracy no longer appears to matter much around here.

The vast majority of responses to my posts now take the time to rewrite what I actually wrote, so the poster can respond to something he or she created.

Bizarre things are in vogue at DU, it seems.

[Vinca]

55. I was all set to give the POTUS a standing ovation until I read about the funding.

He hopes to restore the $2.2 billion to the food stamp program? I bet a whole lot of families are going to hope they can put some food on the table. WTF is happening here?

[frazzled]

56. Larger food stamp cuts also funded teachers' salaries and staved off cuts to Medicaid

The cuts will not go into effect until 2014, when the economy and jobs situation will hopefully be better. The cuts used to partially fund this program won't go into effect until late 2013 (2 years from now). Remember, however, that food stamps were greatly increased in the 2009 stimulus bill: this sort of will get them, after a 4-year period, back to where they were before the spike in unemployment. This was the painful tradeoff the Democrats made to get some otherwise good programs.

I believe that school lunch funding increases (which will qualify more kids for free lunches and breakfasts, and increase the budget for such) and nutritional guidelines are really important to low-income kids: remember, for many kids in poverty who get their breakfast and lunch at school, these are their main meals of the day. 2/3 of their nutritional intake. Maybe, in the end, its more effective than food stamps, which may not go directly into their stomachs.

[Schema Thing]

61. hush now; this is a We-hate-progress-Monday.

[ProudDad]

65. So it's "progress" to kill one class of people

in order to "aid" another class of people...

You can take that kind of "progress", fold it 7 ways and shove it where the sun don't shine...

It's NOT a zero-sum game!

[frazzled]

68. The people who benefit from the new bill are the poorest of poor

The kids who qualify for free lunches, and who eat two meals per day at school. Hurrah for expanding resources for that food and making it adhere to a higher standard.

[no limit]

81. Yeah, good for the kids. They can now have two good meals at school

while they starve at home. Awesome line of thinking.

[frazzled]

86. They have gotten $31 Billion more in food stamps from this admin.

Making a total of $68B spent of food stamp programs this year. And your hatred leads you to deny $2B of this extra money, 6% of it (2% of total food stamp funding), to fund an important child nutrition program.

No progressives here, just twisted logic and false grandstanding. This place is becoming worse than Free Republic.

[no limit]

89. And why did this administration raise food stamps?

I'm trying to remember what happened in late 08 / early 09 that required such action?

Oh yeah, unemployment was around 8% because of the economy that crashed. Remind me again what unemployment is today and how that relates to how much money is needed for programs such as food stamps?

[frazzled]

101. The cuts won't occur for two more years. No, three

in late 2013. If unemployment is at such a point in three years that it still can't sustain a 2% cut in food stamp budgets after a 100% increase, then complain then.

But your logic is absolutely unacceptable now.

[no limit]

103. Lol complain then. That's rich

[bobbolink]

109. The cuts are already in effect... the new bill "accelerates" them.

And your concern for poor people is duly noted.

The New Democratic Party.... "tough love" for poor folk....kinda like the previous party in power.

[SidDithers]

116. .....

b-r-e-a-t-h-e

Sid

[bobbolink]

119. Yup, so far poor folk still have air. We really do appreciate your concern for our lack of

nutrition, however.

All heart.

[Forkboy]

278. My food stamps were cut from $162/month to $30/month.

I can breathe, I just can't eat all month long. Do you even give a fuck? Or is being cute on DU more important to you? I like you, Sid, but you make me wonder sometimes just what the fuck you really do care about. People who are honestly hurting seem to get your scorn. Those who are comfy seem to get your approval. :shrug:

[Jakes Progress]

176. You are avoiding the obvious question.

Why cut one good program to fund another? Isn't there somewhere - oh say the rich guys's tax bonus - that could be used. How about ordering two fewer bombers?

Stop telling us how the money will go to a good thing if it only cuts another good thing. How about I take your kid's eye and give it to a kid who can't see. See. It's a good thing that this new kid can see. And your kid still has one eye. So every thing is great now.

[ProudDad]

62. Then leave teachers, poor hungry people and Medicaid alone

and

CUT THE FUCKING WAR BUDGET!!!

[bobbolink]

144. What a concept!

But poor Dickie's Haliburton would suffer!

[ProudDad]

188. You've got that right!

It's become forbidden to suggest that taking care of people is less important that the Imperial war machine...

It's become forbidden to suggest that taking care of people is worth forcing the more affluent to pay some GD taxes...

It's become forbidden to question the bogus Congressional zero sum game for the Social Safety Net and unlimited funds for the Permanent War Economy(tm)...

Yep, Dickie's Halliburton would suffer -- and he's going to need some more bucks to fight his felony charge...

[progressoid]

158. What?

That's crazy talk.


Crazy liberals.

[ipaint]

72. Yes I'm sure the democrats and the administration are

feeling incredible pain right now. Especially since they worked so damn hard to save their bush tax cuts from elimination. Phew!!!
Imagine how painful that would of been.

Cutting food stamps in a working class depression is unnecessary, immoral and unforgivable. Doing it while giving the rich a tax windfall in the hundreds of billions is insane.

Actions befitting tyrants and despots.

[Dappleganger]

146. I'm more inclined to agree with this...

but the devil is in the details (implementation), as usual. Ideally, no cuts but increases to the food stamp program AND school lunch funding would be made, with substantial increases is the defense war machine.

[RKP5637]

63. People are dispensable except for the top 2%.

[onenote]

66. Now that everyone has gotten all hot and bothered, you might want to read about this bill

I love the fact that folks here don't bother to find out anything about this bill before laying blame on the President. For example, how many of you screaming about this bill knew that the cuts in the food stamp program are spread over ten years, while the bill provides an immediate benefit to millions of at risk children? How many know that the bill passed the House with only 4 Democrats voting "no" (Welch, Tanner, Stupak, and Boyd) but with 153 repubs opposed? How many know that it passed the Senate by unanimous consent -- one person could've stopped it if they wanted to. How many know that some of those raising the strongest objections to the future food stamp cuts still expressed strong support for the bill?

For something new, try educating yourself on an issue before running off declaring this another great failure by President Obama.

http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/legislation?id=0409

[ProudDad]

67. Wonderful

so food stamp recipients, mosly poor and unemployed people...

can starve slowly under the democrat plan...

instead of starving quickly under the other right-wing of the Corporate War Party's plan...

Thank you, Mr. Obama...

[onenote]

78. And thank you again for proving my point

Its Obama's fault that not one Democrat in the Senate stopped this bill?
Its Obama's fault that only four Democrats in the House voted against it?
Its Obama's fault that those Democrats who want to restore the future cuts in food stamp
spending still strongly supported this bill because of the immediate benefits it brings?

I bet Obama is the reason that you misspelled the word "mostly" in the first line of your post, too.

[ProudDad]

189. Shit rolls downhill..

He is supposed to be the "leader of the party", right?

But I never said that all the Dems weren't complicit...!

Fail!

[ipaint]

74. The phrase "cutting food stamps" should not be in any democrats vocabulary, period.

That it is on a backdrop of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars just handed to the rich is beyond disgusting.

[no limit]

80. So cutting funding for the poor is cool, as long as you starve them slowly

because as we just saw with the tax legislation, this congress has no right passing bills that aren't paid for. Right? So to make our children eat healthier we must take something away from the poorest among us.

[onenote]

85. so the part of the description indicating that the cuts don't take effect for three years

but the benefits start accruing immediately went right over your head, didn't it.

And I'm curious why all the fury in this thread is being directed at the President, and none at the Progressives that voted for this bill. Y'know, folks like Dennis Kucinich or Bernie Sanders. They get a free pass for "starving" people?

[no limit]

91. What do you think the unemployment rate will be in 3 years?

What magic 8 ball do you and Obama have that can predict this? Because clearly without knowing that cutting funding from such a vital program is a pretty fucking stupid idea.

And I'm not sure what makes you think I am giving Sanders or Kucinich a free pass on this. But in the end it is the president that has far more control over this bill than an independent senator from Vermont and this one guy in the house.

[onenote]

97. and on what do you base the claim the president had more control over this bill?

Are you suggesting that he should have vetoed the bill despite it having the support of all but 4 House Democrats?

[no limit]

102. Did you just ask me why I think the president of the united states

has control over legislation in a congress filled with members of his party?

I just want to verify that this is actually a serious question that you are asking me. Especially when Obama brokered a deal with the GOP on tax cuts without getting much (if any) input from dems in congress.

And anytime you would like to answer my question about unemployment in 3 years I would appreciate it.

[onenote]

133. I did ask you that. And you didn't answer.

So I'll ask again: do you expect the President to veto a bill introduced by a Democrat and enacted with the support of every Democrat in the Senate and with the support of all but four House Democrats? Its a yes or no question.

As for your question as to what unemployment is going to be in 3 years, I took that as a rhetorical question since my crystal ball isn't working. But if you want me to take a wild guess, I would say that in three years its likely to be around 8 percent, maybe a bit less than that, maybe a smidge more. But that's just a wild guess and maybe some wishful thinking, with no more certainty behind it than a prediction I might make about how many games the Redskins or the Nationals will win three years from now. I suspect, and hope, in each case the answer will be "more than they won in 2010," but there are a lot of factors that could influence the outcome, just as there are a lot of factors that could influence the unemployment picture three years out.

On the other hand, I do know this: that over the next three years millions of children will benefit from the enactment of this legislation and no one who will suffer. Whether the cuts are restored before they would go into effect is uncertain, but the benefits over the next three years are indisputable, which is why the bill had nearly unanimous support among Democrats in Congres, as well as those, like me, who want the cuts restored before they actually take effect.

[no limit]

148. 8%? That's what it was when Obama increase food stamps. And now he will lower them

you think that's a good idea?

And again, I just gave you a very recent example of where the president pretty much writes his own legislation. Why did you ignore it?

[onenote]

160. the president "wrote" his own legislation regarding tax cuts because

the bills that were passing the House weren't going to pass the Senate, so it was necessary to step in. The nutrition bill was passed by the Senate via unanimous consent in August and was supported by all but four Democrats, so exactly why would he undo that at the risk of ending up with nothing?

[no limit]

163. Ahh, so the president has influance over legislation. That means your point before was wrong

and if Obama didn't want to see food stamps cut he could have used his influance to do just that.

And if the democrats want to vote against a nutrition bill for children they can explain why they did so when the next elections come around. There is no reason to cut an already underfunded program.

[Scurrilous]

115. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Traveling_Home]

69. It's for the WORKERS! There seem to be some very good reason that SEIU supported ...

http://www.seiu.org/2010/01/seiu-launches-online-ads-to-push-for-robust-reauthorization-of-child-nutrition-act.php
SEIU Launches Online Ads to Push for Robust Reauthorization of Child Nutrition Act

..."A more robust expansion of school lunch, breakfast, summer feeding, child care and WIC is critical to reducing hunger, ending childhood obesity, and providing fair wages and healthcare for front line food service workers."

<snip>

An estimated 400,000 workers prepare and serve lunch for school children in the U.S., including over 30 million students who rely on free or reduced-priced lunches for a healthy meal. Although they are responsible for the health and nutrition of our school children, many of these workers are paid wages so low that they could qualify for free and reduced-priced lunches as well as other publicly funded programs, based on the federal poverty line for a family of four.

"The work that we do--feeding children--is important," said Gladys Estrada Díaz, a Sodexo cafeteria worker at Edison Middle School in West Orange, NJ. "But I am paid just $7.80 hour, which doesn't correspond to the work I do and makes it impossible for me to afford health insurance and makes it nearly impossible for me to provide for my two kids."

[Occulus]

75. So it's one group being played against another.

Nice.

This is how bad/evil/shithead managers in shops with multiple unions get their gains- they play one union against another, keeping everyone in competition with each other- except, of course, for the decision-makers at the top.

I live this. I recognize it for what it is.

It's despicable any way you slice it.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

84. Another chip off of Obama's vote in 2012...

[Gin]

88. states will be cutting programs too....stand by people....austerity

is going to be our new name for 2011

[NightWatcher]

94. If we Poor keep getting shit on at this rate we'll get that revolution we want

[bobbolink]

248. Exactly right, but saying this will get you either ignored, or vilified for being "violent".

Most poeple just don't want to have to look at the anger that is building.

[onenote]

92. and every other Democrat as well?

Or does this only count against Obama, not the unanimous Senate Democratic caucus and the 247 House Democrats who supported it?

You must be thrilled that Rep.Snyder of Arkansas, who voted aye, lost re-election and broken-hearted that Democrat Mike Ross won his race. Without those votes (Berry abstained), you would have had the entire Arkansas House delegation voting against the bill, which apparently is what you wanted.

[Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel]

137. Truth be known... I'm sick and tired of ALL Bluedogs.

I didn't vote for Ross or Lincoln.


But I'll never-ever vote for a rethug.

[phleshdef]

93. President Obama has added OVER 30 BILLION to the food stamp program since he has been in office...

But even that argument murdering fact aside, people are complaining that he is going to use a small percentage of the fund that helps feed poor people, to um, help feed poor people?

[onenote]

100. actually, people are complaining that he's going to spend more to feed poor people

without spending anything less for anyone else for three years.

[ipaint]

105. Well raising taxes on the working poor should offset that little gem of an argument.

Giving the richest in this country hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts and at the same time cutting from social programs and raising taxes on the working poor is pure right wing. Always has been always will be.

[madrchsod]

142. that is how empires are built and maintained until...

they fall under the weight of their corruption

[Historic NY]

118. Yup, they don't read much behind a snippet or headline.

<snip>

CAP’s recent paper, “Doing What Works to End U.S. Hunger: Federal Programs
Are Effective, but Can Work Even Better,” pointed out that due to $21 billion in
additional antihunger spending that was included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009—the federal stimulus—there is significantly less hunger
and food insecurity in America today than there otherwise would have been.
Most of this spending went to the SNAP-Food Stamps Program. Since nearly half
of all SNAP-Food Stamp recipients are children, one step necessary in reaching
the 2015 goal would be to preserve nutrition policies that proved so successful in
the Recovery Act

<snip>

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/feeding_opportunity.pdf


They shifted funds already in use added to it & got more bang for the buck, more mouths got to eat on a regular basis and its funded to 2015.

[ipaint]

104. And it is still nowhere near enough.

How about we take the 25 billion estate tax windfall and apply it to food stamps considering 1 in 7 american citizens use them to feed themselves.

[phleshdef]

110. I don't know if we need more funding or not. Regardless, he nearly doubled the size of the program.

So no one really has any ground to stand on if they are trying to criticize Obama over food stamp funding.

[blindpig]

106. The shit keeps piling up....

How many sentences could we write about this administration ending in the phrase "...that Bush wouldn't dare do."?

[phleshdef]

112. This admin nearly doubled the funding for food stamps & thats something Bush wouldn't dare do.

I went first!

[SidDithers]

107. Is that the food stamps program Obama increased from $37B to $68B over the last 2 years?...nt

Sid

[NYCGirl]

113. Thank you, Sid. Unfortunately, many will not take this into

consideration. Pours water on their outrage.

[no limit]

166. Just as many won't take in to consideration the fact that food stamps were cut just a few months ago

[Scurrilous]

117. Heh.

:thumbsup:

[no limit]

164. Yeah, the same one that was already cut by 11 billion just a few months ago

[HuckleB]

172. Link?

[Renew Deal]

111. Democrats control congress. How did it pass?

Before it got to the obviously evil Obama? :shrug:

[phleshdef]

114. It passed because there is nothing wrong with it.

[onenote]

130. Because folks like Bernie Sanders and Nancy Pelosi are really DINOs

and the 153 repubs that voted against the bill are all secretly progressives.

Or maybe it was a good bill. Not a perfect bill (which is something that only gets enacted in the fantasies of some DUers) but a good bill. One worthy of the support of even those who acknowledged it wasn't perfect.

[no limit]

150. You're asking me how a democratic congress passed shitty legislation?

Where have you been the last 2 years?

[Historic NY]

121. Feeding Opportunity.............

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/feeding_opportunity.pdf

CAP’s recent paper, “Doing What Works to End U.S. Hunger: Federal Programs
Are Effective, but Can Work Even Better,” pointed out that due to $21 billion in
additional antihunger spending that was included in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009—the federal stimulus—there is significantly less hunger
and food insecurity in America today than there otherwise would have been.
Most of this spending went to the SNAP-Food Stamps Program. Since nearly half
of all SNAP-Food Stamp recipients are children, one step necessary in reaching
the 2015 goal would be to preserve nutrition policies that proved so successful in
the Recovery Act.

snip

[GSLevel9]

124. Seriously... it's turning into a "black comedy"

and that has nothing to do with RACE (proactive message for knee-jerkers)

[Newest Reality]

127. Being one of those who

relies on SNAP to eat right now, there is a question that could be important in this debate thread. I have learned to eat less and be very careful and choosy about what I purchase. It is, however, so much better than waiting in lines at food pantries and hoping to be invited, now and then, to dinner at a friend's. Sardines are my new "steak". ;)

Do we expect the number of new people signing up for SNAP to increase or diminish in the near and long-term future? Considering the numbers currently receiving food stamps, if the numbers increase, (considering the 99ers for instance) then won't the program require MORE funding over time?

If you look at the requirements, you really have to be piss-poor to get SNAP and if you have any income or savings/equity over a certain amount, you either are not eligible or do not qualify.

[LucySky]

131. We would have plenty of money for food and other luxuries if we stopped killing people.

War does not correlate well with our nutritional needs.

[QC]

135. I feel so hopeful! n/t

[madrchsod]

140. stealing pennies from a dead man`s eyes......

[NYCGirl]

143. Administration raised Food Stamp program from $37B to $68B

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=562953&mesg_id=562953

[no limit]

149. And now they lowered it. What is your point?

[NYCGirl]

151. They lowered it by a teeny tiny percentage of what they raised it

by. That does not merit such hyperbole.

[no limit]

157. I don't think you are quite aware of what the term hyperbole means

second, whatever percentage it is they cut it. There was no reason to do this, but they did it anyway.

[Bluebear]

159. Oh, you're just full of hyperbole.

:rofl:

[NYCGirl]

169. "stealing pennies from a dead man's eyes" is a bit hyperbolic,

don't you think?

[ProudDad]

190. 2.2 billiion is a lot of FUCKING MEALS???

You spend some time on the street going hungry and then come tell me how it's hyperbolic to question taking from the poor to give to the poor... :puke:

[phleshdef]

250. No one is taking anything from anyone.

Can you show me any proof that anyone is going to get denied food stamps because of a redirection of a very small portion of the total funding to pay for poor kids to get fed twice a week day?

No, you can't, because there isn't any, because thats not happening.

Obama has nearly doubled funding for food stamps by over 30 billon dollars since he has been in office. Thats an argument murdering fact that, once considered, exposes all the phony outrage bitching over this bill for the disingenenous, low information garbage that it is.

[Jakes Progress]

286. Let me help you with the math.

The budget for food stamps is cut by $2.2 billion. That money was meant to buy food for families. Now the families that would have received that money won't.

Yes, the government increased the money going into food stamps. Do you think Obama padded that budget? Do you think he decided that too many children were being fed so we will cut $2.2 billion worth of meals from that program to put in this one. Do you think the poor are getting too much? Do you think that it is better to fund a good program for the poor by taking money from another good program for the poor? Do you think that is better than actually funding it from some source where it won't involve parents being driven to despair about how they will feed their kids?

There will be $2.2 billion less spent on the food stamp program now. That represents thousands of meals for poor people. Now that is a fact that exposes all the phony whining about picking on Obama for the disingenuous and self-serving garbage that it is.

[progressoid]

162. Not teeny tiny.

11.9 Billion was already stripped from it a couple months ago. Curiously, no funds were cut from the defense dept. or any other bloated agencies.

[Bluebear]

231. Thank you. Teensy tiny is in the eyes of the hungry. nt

[Jakes Progress]

285. How many children would $2.2 billion feed?

And you think that many hungry children is a source for celebration? I work with parents who can't feed their children because of cuts to their food stamps. Tell us why it was a good thing to cut these parents off instead of funding the nutrition program from a source that didn't create hunger. Maybe if we held up a little of the money we just gave away to the wealthy in their tax cuts. One fifth of one percent would do it. So tell us why it was a good thing to fund this by cutting food stamps. Tell us why that is a good thing.

[WinkyDink]

152. Ya know, I considered sarcasm, but this would challenge even Swift.

[russspeakeasy]

179. Maybe he plans to subsidize the cut with some take home shit sandwiches.

[sakabatou]

175. *headdesk*

[russspeakeasy]

177. You gotta be shittin me....

Where in hell is this guy coming from??

[Odin2005]

184. Another Obama FAIL.

[tigereye]

194. wow. That's bad. People are hurting and kids need food. Scary.

[jwirr]

195. So good nutrition is the goal - let them eat cheap junk at home is

the method. Taking money away from the family food source and giving it to the school lunch programs will accomplish nothing.

[DesertFlower]

198. shit. nt

[movingviolation]

200. .

:wtf:

[DeSwiss]

201. K&R

Fucking snake oil salesman. Damn.

[wilbureduke]

212. how to really fund this madness

declare our nations poor children terrorist, then we could spend trillions on them and nobody in washington would mind. someone please tell how our values got so screwed up?

[Cherchez la Femme]

224. It is quite plain he cares NOTHING for those mired

in poverty and is actively digging a deeper hole for them. H
e is NOT a 'people's president', but then what DLC'er IS?

& one of the saddest things is, many of those who receive food stamps or Welfare are heavily invested
--with understandable reasons--
in his Presidency and his continuation of being President. For a very many, when it comes between a choice of Obama being President and their own good, benefit & welfare (no capital 'W') they'll choose Obama over their own good.

It's very unfortunate, very sad; but as I said, it's certainly understandable. :(

[DontTreadOnMe]

227. It's only $2.2 billion

I don't know what all the fuss is about... :)

[Hubert Flottz]

228. I guess he sees it like the GOP...

"Why should poor people eat they'll just get hungry again!"

[grahamhgreen]

232. but he did it with a smile!

[PhillySane]

236. Laughing til I cry

Let's see, where can we make some cuts here? Rich people? Nah. They've suffered enough. Those stock portfolios took a dam hit in 2008! How bout food for poor people! Have you seen those fatties lately?

[LynneSin]

237. I"m guessing only a few of you read the article

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dailydish/2010/12/child-nutrition-bill-produce-school-lunch.html

Child nutrition bill will mean more produce for lunch, officials say

The bill that Congress passed this month, he noted, will provide $4.5 billion over 10 years and give the USDA the authority to set nutrition standards for food sold a la carte, in vending machines and in school stores -- as well as in cafeteria lines -- during the school day. It will also increase by 115,000 the number of children eligible to eat free or reduced-price breakfast and lunch at school because of streamlined certification procedures.

Vilsack, countering some reports, said the bill will not keep parents from bringing cupcakes to school for parties. And food sold outside school hours –- at a Friday night basketball game, for example –- won’t be affected.

About 32 million children eat school lunch every day. For some, that food might be their only meals, many officials have said. Vilsack said that 17 million children live in homes that are “food insecure” and that 1 in 3 children are obese or at risk of becoming obese

Having these meals available for children at school means more food stamps available for parents to spend on the other meals. And unfortunately for some families, there are parents who use those food stamps to barter for non-food products which means that school lunch might be the only decent meal those kids get.

[PhillySane]

238. Yes but...

Let's make up our mind here. Are they not getting enough food or are they too fat? You can't have it both ways. In the end, there's 2 billion less for the poor. But we can't take any money away from the super-rich. Besides, they will use that money to hire personal trainers who will keep them nice and svelt, and good to look at!

[LynneSin]

240. Childhood obsesity is problematic with children from low-income families

For a parent who might be working several jobs just to make ends meet, it's easier for them to buy meals that can be put on the table in minutes then to take the time to prepare a healthy meal. And schools that can barely make their budget will cut deals with manufacturers of processed foods that might help the school add a bit to the budget but requires them to put vending machines & product placement of junk food and sugary drinks easily accessible to the children. You might as well let the schools cut a deal with Phillip Morris to put cigarette machines in the school. Overloading these kids with junk only hurts them.

I think it was in the movie "Supersize Me" where the director visited a school that was geared towards problematic children. The school decided to pull all overly-processed foods, high-sugar content products and cook highly nutrition foods for lunchtime. They found that the children were not as out-of-control and actually were able to better pay attention in school all day. Grades went up.

$4.5b will hopefully allow these schools to cut ties with corporations that want to poison our kids with processed foods and allow schools to not only make more healthy options for the children but allow more children to receive these foods at a much reduced cost (or even free).

[PhillySane]

241. I don't argue that point but..

A) Kids whose parents have lots of money get to choose what they eat. It can also be a matter of personal choice. If I choose to eat junk food, that's my choice. B) The real sticking point here is where the money comes from. Why is it just shuffled away from one group of poor people to be given to another? We have the wealthiest people in the world here who are kicking and screaming that their tax rates are going back up at the end of the year and nothing else gets done until they get to keep their money. It's sad.

[LynneSin]

243. Nutrition programs benefit everyone

I mean it's not just low-income families that are obese - it's all of our children collectively. This problem got worse when schools allowed the placement of junk food vendors in the schools and I've seen those vendors in school districts of all levels.

Childhood obesity can lead to a lifetime of health issues, which will impact healthcare costs.

And think about this. Say a parent gets a budget of $300 a month in food stamps. That means the parents would have about $3.92 to suppliment 3 meals a day. That's not alot of money especially if you have several mouths to feed. But if those kids can get even just one meal paid for them at school each day that means there is more money available for the meals the parents have to supply at home.

The other side we overlook is that there are people out there that abuse foodstamps. Parents with drug habits may sell their foodstamps for pennies on the dollar in order to supply their habit. At least with a strong school lunch program these kids might be able to get some food available to them.

[PhillySane]

254. I know people who use food stamps

None of them are trading them in for drugs. To pay the rent maybe, but not for drugs. I hope you actually know who you're talking about here and not just pulling this out of thin air. I know poor people. And actually, most don't have drug habits. What they have is a society that increasingly has become disinterested with their plight. An economic system that has locked them out of a chance to improve themselves monetarily and even if they have a job, their wages just don't add up to what's called "getting by". Meanwhile, the banks get to foreclose to their hearts content, Goldman-Sachs gets to hand out big bonuses and Exxon-Mobil will once again record an increase in yearly profits. Why? Because the government is on their side. They barely balked at $700 Billion for these people. They barely balked at $700 Billion for an unjust war in Iraq. But could they find an extra $2 billion for poor kids to each lunch? Jesus Christ!

[LynneSin]

262. I know people who have used food stamps for all sorts of reasons

And it was 4.5B, that of which 2B came from Food Stamps, a program whose spending has pretty much doubled under Obama.

Please don't assume stuff about me either.

Point is this - food stamps should be used for food and not any other purpose especially when children are involved.

[Jakes Progress]

287. Yeah. those nasty old poor people.

They must be keeping you from getting the gps on your new beemer.

Now where have we heard the meme about the Cadillac welfare mothers before? Hmmm. Who could have been putting out that old propaganda?

[ipaint]

263. Facts tell a different story.

"According to the Government Accountability Office, at a 2009 count, 3.53% of food stamps benefits were found to be overpaid, down from 7.01% in 1999.<16> A 2003 analysis found that two-thirds of all improper payments were the fault of the caseworker, not the participant."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplemental_Nutrition_Assistance_Program

Very little abuse. I get so sick and fucking tired of people who have no clue what they are talking about making statements of "fact" which just spread bigotry and hate.

[ipaint]

264. More right wing myth busting.

"As a recent Depression-era diary edited by Big Money's James Ledbetter documents, during the bank closures of the 1930s, desperate families would sell their passbooks to shuttered banks for 50 or 60 cents on the dollar. Reporting in 2010 in the severely "recessed" city of Hartford, Connecticut, which has been struggling for decades to rebuild from the death of manufacturing, I had a case of déjà vu. There I met several unemployed mothers who've surpassed their lifetime welfare limits who told me they sell their food stamps at the corner bodega for 70 cents on the dollar just to cover basics like utility bills and winter shoes for their kids.

"Nobody's had work for a few years now," Carmen Cordero, a longtime welfare rights activist with the Hartford-based group Vecinos Unidos, told me. "People need a base. They need a safety net. They need continued support. Women have to make horrible choices when they lose cash."

One woman I met, Eva Hernandez (she asked me not to use her real name because selling food stamps is illegal), a 28-year-old mother of two young girls, is now precipitously close to the edge. After working low-wage jobs at places like Dunkin Donuts and KFC for close to a decade, tapping public assistance off and on over the years to supplement her poverty wages, Eva used up her lifetime allotment of cash assistance. Last March, in the midst of the worst job crisis in at least a generation, Eva opened the last welfare check she will ever receive. Now, unable to find any work at all, she's been pushed to break the law to get by."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-wessler/jobless-forced-to-sell-fo_b_467485.html


But just keep spreading lies about the poor. Anything to make a cut in food stamps look good even if it causes further damage and violence to those who don't have enough to eat.

[unapatriciated]

249. That's truly it and I'm amazed that so many do not see it.

We have the wealthiest people in the world here who are kicking and screaming that their tax rates are going back up at the end of the year and nothing else gets done until they get to keep their money.

The minority is blackmailing us by starving the poor and further eroding our social safety nets. Just so they might horde more than they will ever need or use.
We are all one paycheck or major illness away from joining the ever increasing poverty rolls.
Yet we are being told over and over again that this is all we can get and should be grateful for the crumbs from their table, a banquet that our labor provides.

[EFerrari]

275. I read the article. These are better meals, not more meals.

It doesn't mean more food stamps available for other meals.

It means money out of the food stamp program budget.

That's the part that I don't like. Since that program is already not covering hunger in the country adeequately, you'd think they could have found the money somewhere else.

[Myrina]

242. Shameful. I hope his mother & grandmother's ghosts haunt the hell out of him.

:thumbsdown:

[irislake]

244. Let them eat each other.

[Javaman]

245. God, help us all if he ever cut 2.2 billion from the defense budget. nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

257. Don't be ridiculous.

Space aliens might show up at any moment wanting to give the entire planet anal probes. How do you think we'll defend ourselves? I mean I have to assume that this is the plan, given that we spend more in our military than all the rest of the world. It's like any country is planning to invade us or anything.

[defendandprotect]

292. It's costing us $2 BILLION a week for Afghanistan .... $325 million a day -- !!!

Hope those figures are right -- Hartmann was going over those figures today ---

didn't have pen n' paper --


sigh ...

[valerief]

260. Must. Give. Wealthy.All.Money. Must. Let.Rabble.Die. Must.Obey.Bilderberg. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

261. "eat the poor"...new philosophy.

[onenote]

282. Can anyone provide a cite to how the 2.2 billion figure was calculated?

The Recovery Act contained a provision that boosted the maximum SNAP benefit by 13.6 percent. That increase was to terminate on September 30, 2009 or whenever the inflation adjusted Thrifty Food Plan amount matched the 13.6 increase (so that there would be no decrease in benefits when the 13.6 increase expired).

The nutrition act modified the Recovery Act provision by changing the date from September 30, 2009 to October 2013. While that might seem like an extension, its not, because the October 2013 is a "hard" termination date -- it kicks in whether or not inflation has pushed the Thrifty Food Plan benchmark up to or past the 13.6 adjustment. So in theory, it could mean a cut in benefits starting in the fall of 2013.

But here's the kicker -- I haven't seen any indication as to how much the TFP has increased because of food price inflation since 2008 and how much more it has to increase before it catches up with the 13.6 increase. While inflation has been low, no one can predict with mathematical certainty what the maximum benefit will be when the 13.6 adjustment expires. Yet the $2.2 billion figure is cited as if its an absolute certainty. I for one would like to know what that number, which has to be nothing more than an estimate, is based on. What level of food price inflation is being predicted for the next two years? How much has occurred in the past two?

Anyone?

[Tx4obama]

284. See comment #98 n/t

[Jakes Progress]

288. See all the posts that point out what a crock #98 is for an excuse.

[KimFongToy]

290. I read a post earlier today by louslobbs from California

He said that he is donating the tax cut he does not want and does not need to a food bank in Palm Springs where it is difficult to get food stamps. Now I know why, and President Obama just made it more difficult for people in other states to get the benefits as well. Wouldn't it be great if all those who didn't need and didn't want their tax cut gave it to those who need food. Food I said, is that unbelievable, people in this country in serious need of food. Food is not an option it is a need. I cannot believe what the Republicans are doing to America. It is a shame and it is for some people a sin. 2.2 billion stripped from a fund to feed starving children, and millions in tax cuts to the wealthy......has everything in this once great country gone totally insane at the hands of the Republicans and the co-dependency of Mr. Obama?

[defendandprotect]

291. Obama reveals himself ... not only a man who takes a good pic and speaks English well...!!! Yikes!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

295. $2.2 billion is about 10 days of the Afghanistan war

But we have to keep the military-industrial complex happy and make sure that there's a "poverty draft," so the troops can't come home from there until we win...whatever it is we're supposed to be winning.

[Name removed]

296. Deleted message

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