Republicans Vote to Slash Food Stamps

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This blog from the Huffington Post on the GOP's latest hate crime:

Writing a Neutral Story About Something So Heartless As the Food Stamp Vote Is Not Good Journalism | Dan Froomkin

excerpt:

"I decided to closely examine this morning's coverage of the vote because such a blatantly absurd and cruel move struck me as a good test of whether the Washington press corps could ever bring itself to call things as they so obviously are -- or whether they would check their very good brains at the door and just write triangulating mush that leaves readers to fend for themselves. It was no contest.

And as it happens, the Times editorial board actually understated things. Yesterday's vote was not only an undeniable act of heartlessness, it was also perhaps the ultimate example of how today's increasingly radical and unhinged GOP leadership picks on the poor, coddles the rich, makes thinly veiled appeals to racism, and plays time-wasting political games instead of governing."

From NBC Nightly News:

ONE IN SEVEN AMERICANS RELY ON FOOD STAMPS:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/ns/NBCNightlyNews/#53056370

46.5 MILLION AMERICANS IN POVERTY, ONE IN FIVE ARE CHILDREN:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3032619/ns/NBCNightlyNews/#53036910
 
Last edited:

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Someone explain to me why Red states, which contain the poorest people, keep voting for politicians that hate poor people? Take Mississippi for an example. It is completely red. It is also the poorest state in the union. It has more people on food stamps and wellfare than anywhere else in the country. The republicans they keep voting into office, from federal to state to local government, do nothing but try to strip them of the very programs the majority of these people depend on to survive from month to month.

Blue states, with some of the wealthiest members of our nation, are in the same boat. Dems try again and again to take from the rich and give to the poor. You can set your watch by it. Yet they fill their governing bodies with dems. Red or blue, what the fuck is wrong with these people???
 

breeze

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Posts
451
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
163
Age
34
Someone explain to me why Red states, which contain the poorest people, keep voting for politicians that hate poor people? Take Mississippi for an example. It is completely red. It is also the poorest state in the union. It has more people on food stamps and wellfare than anywhere else in the country. The republicans they keep voting into office, from federal to state to local government, do nothing but try to strip them of the very programs the majority of these people depend on to survive from month to month.

Blue states, with some of the wealthiest members of our nation, are in the same boat. Dems try again and again to take from the rich and give to the poor. You can set your watch by it. Yet they fill their governing bodies with dems. Red or blue, what the fuck is wrong with these people???

I'm not exactly sure but the south votes as a block for the GOP cause
JFK sent troops there during the civil rights movement. Nothing else matters. But i haven't researched the history.

I don't know about blue states but there aren't enough rich people in any state , in terms of votes , to make any difference. And its not like you're reaching into their bank accounts or capping their salaries. All the government , in these states , is doing is raising the mimimum wage , providing some social services and some health care.

The majority of voters in all the states are the working class , the poor , the growing minorities , etc etc. I think , for the most part, they get it.
Except southerners who still remember what JFK did to them.

However people still vote with their pocketbooks and this could all change if there's a recession during a democratic term or someone charismatic like ronald reagan ran. Everything being equal it would be hard to beat eastwood { if he were a member of the GOP } or schwarzengger. Lots of variables. There are still swing states.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I'm not exactly sure but the south votes as a block for the GOP cause
JFK sent troops there during the civil rights movement. Nothing else matters. But i haven't researched the history.

I don't know about blue states but there aren't enough rich people in any state , in terms of votes , to make any difference. And its not like you're reaching into their bank accounts or capping their salaries. All the government , in these states , is doing is raising the mimimum wage , providing some social services and some health care.

The majority of voters in all the states are the working class , the poor , the growing minorities , etc etc. I think , for the most part, they get it.
Except southerners who still remember what JFK did to them.

However people still vote with their pocketbooks and this could all change if there's a recession during a democratic term or someone charismatic like ronald reagan ran. Everything being equal it would be hard to beat eastwood { if he were a member of the GOP } or schwarzengger. Lots of variables. There are still swing states.

I'm a dem and want more dems through out the local, state, and federal governments. I think the nation would be better off for it due to todays brand of republican wack-o birds who have taken over the party. Back when the parties were made up of moderates they were able to function and work together. Today a republican has to ignore facts, insist science is a liberal conspiracy, be homophobic to the core of their being, and hate anyone who identifies themselves as a democrat for no other reason than they are democrats just to get elected or re-elected.

The effect of this teaparty and the extremist branch of the republican and libertarian parties has broken the federal government. Some of their stated goals are good goals for a political group to have, but what they have done to our political system has insured none of those goals will ever be reached.

Please my republican friends, take the power back from these irrational people. Help fix what they have broken. Those of you in red states, the republicans you have voted into office are not your friends. For the last 30 years they have done nothing but take from you. They cut off the government assistance you desperately need, when they say "lower the taxe rate and broaden the base" that means cutting taxes for the wealthy and raising taxes on the middle class and the poor, trickle down economics has only seen corperate profits increase and the stagnation of the income of the middle class and the poor, if you are part of the LGBT community these politicians want you to die and go straight to hell, and if you are just unlucky enough to have fallen into poverty and need to use food stamps to eat this latest vote proves the republicans want you and your children to starve.

Don't just listen to their campaigns as they play off your fears. Look at what they are doing to you! Help bring sanity back to back to your party. You CAN do it.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
I
However people still vote with their pocketbooks and this could all change if there's a recession during a democratic term or someone charismatic like ronald reagan ran.

Not really. By all accounts Obama should have lost in 2012 and he didn't. The economy still struggling, job growth anemic, wages down. They saw what the Republicans had to offer and said 'no thanks'.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Mitt wasn't exactly Reagan reincarnate lol, and combine that with Obama's blame everyone except me and everything except my ideas worked masterfully.

Sadly, the democrats have a better message to sell than even the ideal Republicans, which by that I mean focus on the real issues not the social nonsense ones.
 

njitalian02

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2012
Posts
266
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
103
Location
NJ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
i read also that the proposal, while not only cutting funding did other things including:
1.) Creating a work requirement (i.e., that if you are able to work, there is a new requirement that you actively seek employment),
2.) Takes into account lottery winnings when determining eligibility (i.e., if you win 100K, you cant collect),
3) Allows for drug testing of those who collect and/or eliminates eligibility if you are convicted of a crime while on the stamps.

Funding is one thing---I mean, to a certain extent we dont want people being solely dependent on this and become lazy--but are the above three things individually appropraite? I think so. Like if they passed a bill, keeping funding as is, but created the 3 new requirements, can we all agree that there is nothing wrong with that?
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Shhhh NJ, don't rally against popular opinion. There's an obvious choice here to overly demonize the opposition while blatantly refusing to find any fault with the "popular" party.

None of those things are at all unreasonable, but it's inevitable that the spin will be that the GOP hates, in this case, poor people.

The argument that many make that it is also racist seems to me about as racist as it gets.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
i read also that the proposal, while not only cutting funding did other things including:
1.) Creating a work requirement (i.e., that if you are able to work, there is a new requirement that you actively seek employment),
2.) Takes into account lottery winnings when determining eligibility (i.e., if you win 100K, you cant collect),
3) Allows for drug testing of those who collect and/or eliminates eligibility if you are convicted of a crime while on the stamps.

Funding is one thing---I mean, to a certain extent we dont want people being solely dependent on this and become lazy--but are the above three things individually appropraite? I think so. Like if they passed a bill, keeping funding as is, but created the 3 new requirements, can we all agree that there is nothing wrong with that?

This I would have no problem with, but that is not what they did. The number of people who are not going to get the food stamps they desperately need to eat next month is not worth it.

...it's inevitable that the spin will be that the GOP hates, in this case, poor people.

The level of fraud and abuse, the reasoning behind this cut, in SNAP is 3%... I'll say that again...the level of fraud and abuse in SNAP is 3%. For this 3% the House Republicans cut funding for SNAP by 39 billion dollars.

How is that "spin"?
 

nakedsmile

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Posts
45
Media
16
Likes
3
Points
43
Location
southern mi
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
The GOP waves the flag and the Bible; but is not moral or patriotic. It will use anything to serve the international cooperations that control it; and it is pro_death not prolife!
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
This I would have no problem with, but that is not what they did. The number of people who are not going to get the food stamps they desperately need to eat next month is not worth it.

The only people they're interested in 'feeding' is the wealthy with gutted regulations and endless rounds of deficit producing tax cuts. And when the inevitable happens, red ink, they say 'we're broke' and have to cut cut cut. And the red staters lap it up like free beer.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The only people they're interested in 'feeding' is the wealthy with gutted regulations and endless rounds of deficit producing tax cuts. And when the inevitable happens, red ink, they say 'we're broke' and have to cut cut cut. And the red staters lap it up like free beer.

You say "red staters" like free beer like it's a bad thing. Not for nothing, but living in California, I'm still inclined to enjoy a free drink...especially if it's a gay dude with entirely unrealistic notions for where his night is going to end up.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This I would have no problem with, but that is not what they did. The number of people who are not going to get the food stamps they desperately need to eat next month is not worth it.



The level of fraud and abuse, the reasoning behind this cut, in SNAP is 3%... I'll say that again...the level of fraud and abuse in SNAP is 3%. For this 3% the House Republicans cut funding for SNAP by 39 billion dollars.

How is that "spin"?

My fault was with your preceding post, at least in regard to the spin angle.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
You say "red staters" like free beer like it's a bad thing. Not for nothing, but living in California, I'm still inclined to enjoy a free drink...

Then perhaps, instead of curtailing the food stamp program, you would support *expanding* it to include free beer?
 

b.c.

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
20,540
Media
0
Likes
21,784
Points
468
Location
at home
Verification
View
Gender
Male
This I would have no problem with, but that is not what they did. The number of people who are not going to get the food stamps they desperately need to eat next month is not worth it.



The level of fraud and abuse, the reasoning behind this cut, in SNAP is 3%... I'll say that again...the level of fraud and abuse in SNAP is 3%. For this 3% the House Republicans cut funding for SNAP by 39 billion dollars.

How is that "spin"?

Well, not only that, but while they were at it, made sure to take care of farm subsidies:


Republicans: We Were Too Nice to the Hungry -- Daily Intelligencer


"The upshot is that food stamps are a meager subsidy, of less than $1.40 per meal, for people either stuck in very low paid jobs or unable to find work at all."

"Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, a Republican supporter of the bill, received a daily meal allowance of $127.41, or 91 times the average daily food-stamp benefit. Lucas is also notable as a recipient of the agriculture subsidies his committee doles out: He and his wife have collected more than $40,000 worth."

"It’s the juxtaposition of the two programs that so clearly exposes the party’s agenda."

"House Republicans are not only locking in high agriculture subsidies, they are throwing more money at agriculture than Democrats want to spend. Obama has attacked the GOP farm-subsidy bill for spending too much."

"Here is the one chunk of social spending where Republicans are not only failing to issue hostage threats to secure the cuts they demand, they are also refusing to cut spending as much as Barack Obama asks."

"... the program they pick to defend is, on the substantive merits, the most unjustifiable program of any significant scale in the federal budget."
 

B_underguy1

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2013
Posts
1,983
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
73
Location
NZ
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Leaving aside the Donkey vs Elephant posturing....

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/21/food-s21.html

Obama said he would veto the bill in its present form. However, this is thoroughly hypocritical given Obama’s own policies. The Democratic budget passed in the Senate earlier this year cuts over $4 billion from the food stamp program, on top of cuts that are already scheduled to take place as a result of the expiration of the 2009 Recovery Act. A family of three can expect to see a $20 to $25 a month reduction in SNAP benefits as a result. There are no proposals from the Obama administration or either house of Congress to forestall this reduction in benefits.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Leaving aside the Donkey vs Elephant posturing....

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/21/food-s21.html

Obama said he would veto the bill in its present form. However, this is thoroughly hypocritical given Obama’s own policies. The Democratic budget passed in the Senate earlier this year cuts over $4 billion from the food stamp program, on top of cuts that are already scheduled to take place as a result of the expiration of the 2009 Recovery Act. A family of three can expect to see a $20 to $25 a month reduction in SNAP benefits as a result. There are no proposals from the Obama administration or either house of Congress to forestall this reduction in benefits.

$4 billion vs. $40 billion.

That's some pretty impressive posturing.