Food Stamp Cuts Proposal Is Unprecedented

[still_one]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/proposed-cuts-to-food-sta_n_683162.html

To help prevent a pair of domestic spending bills from adding to the national budget deficit, Democratic leaders in the Senate have proposed cuts to future food stamp funding, saving $14.1 billion over 10 years.

Several Democrats have said they'll prevent the cuts -- which will phase out a stimulus bill provision that increased families' monthly food stamp payments -- from ever taking effect. So are the planned cuts nothing more than an accounting gimmick to win "yes" votes from deficit hawks, or are they a serious threat to families who rely on the money to feed their children?

[ixion]

1. Hey, the MIC needs that 14 billion, so those people can just eat cake.

:sarcasm:

[earth mom]

49. More like let em starve.

:grr:

[Donnachaidh]

2. So when are these same Senators going to take a CUT in pay for the good of the country?

They don't seem to have a problem from robbing form the poorest of the citizens out there -- when do THEY *feel the pain*?

[RandomThoughts]

3. If cutting food stamps is how they see things

That is about them.


That is their choice.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Unfortunately, it's not "about them."

I can only wish it were about them.

Unfortunately, what it's really about is delivering another devastating blow to the already defenseless people on the bottom of the pile.

[RandomThoughts]

13. I am saying they can not say it is someone elses responsibililty or choice

it is them that make that decision. One of the reasons for people to follow some ideology or idea without thinking and feeling, is to think they can not make a choice, and from there think they are not responsible for what they do.

I have not looked into the issue, if it was to cut aggro business subsidies that go to big companies, that would be different, but if it is to cut food going out to people with low incomes, that does not seem correct.


Some think all charity should be private. But people can also, if they do not have money to help someone hungry, give by supporting groups that support organizations like social governments when they help people.

Electing and supporting a group of representatives that help people is a way for some people with less resources to help other people also.

[Jackpine Radical]

20. Whenever some "medical charity"

calls me for a donation so that they can provide care to people, I tell them that I'm donating my available money to politicians who are working for universal health care.

I do contribute in individual cases, like for a local kid who needs an expensive treatment, but not to the big organizations. I vew the latter as a sort of "symptom suppression" that doesn't treat the underlying problem.

[area51]

115. +1

I told Doctors without Borders that we need their help here and explained we have no right to health care in the U.S.

Each day, 273 people die due to lack of health care in the U.S.; that's 100,000 deaths per year.

We need single-payer health care, not a welfare bailout for the serial-killer insurance agencies.

We don't need the GingrichCare of mandated, unregulated, for-profit insurance that is still too expensive, only pays parts of medical bills, denies claims, and bankrupts people. Republinazi '93 plan:

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005."

"We will never have real reform until people's health stops being treated as a financial opportunity for corporations."

[RainDog]

4. god forbid that a trader on Wall Street should have to sacrifice a yacht

so that a child in America can eat breakfast.

Fucking greedy pigs.

Fucking assholes in Washington D.C. who are willing to kick the poor in the head while the criminals on Wall Street gear up for another assault on the rest of this nation.

I HAVE HAD IT.

I am so fucking sick of this shit. This is not the America that I want to live in. This is a FAILED state if corporate whores are so important that children may go hungry to appease J.P. Morgan and DuPont and Goldman Sachs and the rest of the fucking fascists who, since FDR, have demonstrated their utter contempt for the American people.

If they all dropped dead tomorrow we would all be better off.

[reggie the dog]

19. I just saw on online survey in which

FDR was the 3rd worst american in our history, lots of people dont like worker safety, unemployment insurance, minimum wage, dont like camping in ccc build campgrounds, it is sad to say but nearly half if not more than half of people in america would like to see kids go hungry so that someone gets a yacht, even if it is their own kid not eating, because they think they will one day be the rich person in a yacht. at least we understand that that is not true in most of Europe

[Jackpine Radical]

22. These poor suckers are very brainwashed.

The media messages they get are scripted by psychopaths, and lack of empathy is the new cool or something.

The truly poor, however, are very much more reality connected. They know they have no chance. That, incidentally, is what makes the lottery a rational choice for them. Even a very slim chance is better than no chance, so they are willing to pay for the privilege of taking the proverbial "Hail Mary" shot.

[reggie the dog]

28. the poor are sometimes duped

urban poor are less often duped but look at the percentage of rural poor who vote republican, who hate fdr ect. it is mind boggling.... but yes many rural poor get it, and many of them grow weed and brew meth to be sold to the cities where other poor people sell them as they see it as their only hope to make good money.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. Yes, sadly, you're right.

Hell, some of the most pro-war, wacko patriots I've ever known have lived on Indian reservations. It's the warrior thing, you know.

[bobbolink]

89. "lack of empathy is the new cool "

Wow, do you have that pegged exactly!

crud-a-rama... my whole reply just vanished! :grr:


"The truly poor, however, are very much more reality connected."

Exactly, and the reality we know is that first part... that empathy isn't something we are likely to receive. :(

It is pervasive, but known only to us, it seems. So if we voice it, we are treated as crazy, or "ungrateful" or all the other blames.

A few of us have begun to discuss this, and are understanding some of the causes. The problem is how to talk about it... how to bring it out into the open. Because, being poor, and being on the bottom of the ladder, we are not heard. People just dismiss us or become defensive, no matter how we try to present it.

It isn't seen as an issue, so finding resources that prove our point isn't even likely. I found one article... "Why Are Bullies Attracted To Social Work", and that was from the UK! NOTHING from this country on it.

The book, "The Empathy Gap" is helpful, but needs a group study.

We would welcome some thoughts on this. Not personal advice, nor the same old things that we all do, but real thought about this problem, and how to present it so it will be heard. From that, hopefully will come actionl

Thank you for posting your astute observations! I hope you have some ideas for the next step.

[Jackpine Radical]

101. Bobbi, I am very much interested in this business.

PM me anytime. I would like to do what I can to help, and would also like to get ideas from you about what forms my own participation might take.

I hope you will beg, borrow or steal the following book (I quote a part of a review of it from Amazon):

Helens Shulman & Mary Watkins. Towards Psychologies of Liberation (Critical Theory and Practice in Psychology and the Human Sciences)

http://www.amazon.com/Psychologies-Liberation-Critical-Practice-Psychology/dp/0230537693/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1282184612&sr=1-1

TOWARD PSYCHOLOGIES OF LIBERATION represents decades of collaborative work between two psychologists who have taught extensively, engaged with liberationist practitioners in Latin America even when this involved entering dangerous situations, and traveled the world to witness and help build socially engaged restorative practices and networks that address the psychological effects of poverty, genocide, environmental devastation, and other globalized catastrophes and collective traumata too vast to fit into the therapist's office.

Arguing against colonial models of the autonomous self that move health and pathology into the heads of individuals instead of tracking them in our relations with each other, Watkins and Schulman call for and describe emerging psychologies that deal with people as they really live: embedded in contexts of cultural, ecological, and political forces that frame and disrupt their lives. Drawing on interdisciplinary sources (the arts, the humanities) and on local work by those who fight for justice and sovereignty, the liberation psychologies described in this book hold social justice and mental health together in ongoing experiments and envisionings of the kinds of societies that meet human needs while respecting those of the planet. In this kind of work, people are encouraged to dream up their own ideas about how to live together, to try out new forms of attachment and belonging, and to come up with their own values and norms instead of being the passive recipients of normative models imposed by "experts" from the top down.

A key ingredient in liberatory work is dialog: the invitation of all voices to the table. Psychologies of liberation create "public homeplaces" (hooks, Belenky) where normally marginalized voices and visions can be shared safely in ongoing conversations that create community. These dialogs also foster the "critical consciousness" (Freire, Martin-Baro) to break through the internalized fatalisms of oppressive social conditions and begin to entertain a conscious desire for new ways to live humanely together. Such conversational enclaves also open spaces for practicing new roles that give the performer a regenerated sense of agency and personal efficacy. As the authors state it:

"Here the role of the psychologist becomes that of a convener, a witness, a coparticipant, a mirror, and a holder of faith for a process through which those who have been silenced may discover their own capacities for historical memory, critical analysis, utopian imagination, and transformative social action. The psychologist might bring to the table theories and histories that have been developed in the past, but they will be `relativized' and `critically revised' in each local arena where they may or may not apply. Truth in this new epistemology is democratized."

Psychologies of liberation do not confine themselves to far-off places or "third world" countries. As the recent economic downturn, bail-outs for banks, foreclosures rising into the millions, and outright deregulatory pillaging of the American national treasury have demonstrated for all to see, tottering empires eventually turn on their own citizens. By contrast, participatory action research changes institutions from the inside out by involving everyone to be present and available for transformation through participatory dialog and engaged imagination, pooling new knowledge about alternatives and fresh possibilities.

[bobbolink]

106. TOWARDS PSYCHOLOGIES OF LIBERATION--Thanks! Sounds like a great book!

I appreciate the recommendation, and wish we could do a group study on this!

I am also going to share this with an Indian friend of mine, who is finishing up her Ph.D. in education, and we trade resources a lot. She's going to love having another book for her shelf! (I was just visiting her on the rez, and her shelves are groaning.... hehehehe)

I have been talking about just that.... making the reaction of poor people to the trauma they face into individual problems.... what crap! Just force pills, which spell profits for the Pharmcos! How damned convenient! I have also been talking about the cruelty that is done to people on the bottom of the ladder, but that cruelty is never labeled as "mentally ill". Again, how very convenient for them.

Thanks again for this gem... and watch your inbox!

:yourock:

[reggie the dog]

103. I was really hoping that empathy would have come back into fashion

with the MDMA ecstacy thing around 2000 but most 'x' today is just speed with little or no MDMA (mdma is what makes one feel empathy) Remember that MDMA (a drug which makes people feel warmth, empathy and love) was made illegal in the 80's

[bobbolink]

107. We don't need drugs. We need to get thrugh the barriers around our hearts.

[Jackpine Radical]

111. Yes, exactly.

[still_one]

33. Online surveys have no credibility /nt

[inna]

29. The craziest thing about cutting food stamps budget is that...

Guess whose idea it was.


Shockingly, it came from the Administration.

[SammyWinstonJack]

46. Not shocking, not at all... coming from the Wall ST. Administration.

[laughingliberal]

5. And the hits just keep on coming! nt

[ipaint]

7. Selling the humanity of food stamp cuts.

"American food stamps are not generous, averaging only $4.50 a day even after being bumped up in the recession-era stimulus — less than you’d need to buy two meals at McDonald’s. And since the start of the recession, the number of families depending on them has skyrocketed. The economic crisis has pushed 12.9 million people into SNAP; as of April, more than 40 million collect the bare-bones benefits. More than 6 million Americans report no income whatsoever except for SNAP — because they are not eligible for unemployment insurance, Social Security, disability or other programs.

Sensitive to the risky politics of cutting benefits for the neediest Americans, aides have been on a behind-the-scenes push to convince think tanks, unions and reporters of both the necessity and humanity of the cuts. In their telling, it is not a cut at all. It is merely a “technical fix” for years in the future."

...the ARRA increase to SNAP benefits boosted benefits from meager to less-meager, advocates say. “We have been very supportive of the ARRA boost,” says Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center. “But it underscored that these benefits are not generous. Anecdotally, we heard that the ARRA boost let some SNAP recipients keep going to the supermarket in the third or fourth week of the month, rather than going to a soup kitchen starting after the second week. They were stretching out their benefits, and purchasing some more nutritious food, like fresh fruit and vegetables.” Vollinger notes that even with the ARRA funding the average SNAP benefit is not really enough to eat.

And FRAC argues that that the situation where the government might actually cut benefits — where in Feb. 2014, a recipient might receive a $400 benefit on their EBT card, and in March, 2014, $350 — would be “devastating” for recipients. “In the 1990s, there were terrible cuts to the program,” Vollinger explains. “But nobody ever started receiving less money . That situation — what will happen if people aren’t well-informed about the cut? What if they don’t recognize that the benefit will be lower?” It has never happened in the history of the program, Vollinger notes."

http://washingtonindependent.com/93443/to-get-medicaid-and-education-aid-to-states-an-unprecedented-cut-to-food-stamps


The depression the poor are experiencing is not going to be magically over in 3.5 years despite what millionaires in the senate "believe". The temp increase should be open ended and eventually made permanent considering food isn't getting any cheaper.

[Uben]

8. I thought the cuts were......

....really just the stimulus adjustment expiring. Didn't they have a temporary increase in the stimulus bill? I was under the impression it was never to be a permanent increase. Now is certainly not the time to take food out of people's mouths.

[Sinistrous]

14. I also read that somewhere. n/t

[Igel]

37. Yes, it's a gimmick.

For some, having the increase expire is an intentional cut. (I suspect most of them would argue that letting the * tax cuts expire isn't really an intentional increase.)

There are a few gimmicks. One is borrowing money from the future and acting as though it's not going to show up as an actual present debt. I'd like to borrow 10% of my income from 2015 and spend it today, but I suspect that it would show up on my credit cards as a debt. Then again, I'm not a Congressperson, so obviously I don't have access to intertemporal acccounting modalities, whereby I can eat my cake and put on weight several years before the cake is even baked: Not a question of eating my cake and having it, too, but of eating my cake and hoping to get it for the first time somewhere in the future. Think about it: They can run what looks like a $5 trillion deficit in 2010 and offset it by using the entire federal budget for 2041, using 2041 dollars today--and poof, there's no deficit on the books in 2010 and so they don't have to raise the debt ceiling. Moreover, because they invested the money now they can claim a return on investment in 2041!

Krugman does precisely this kind of game with Social Security. I wonder if he's ever had his checkbook actually in balance.

But a more clever gimmick is in counting the sunsetting of a temporary increase in a program as a cost savings.

It's a great political move--assuming it works out right. On the one hand, you're fiscally prudent without actually having to do anything--you just get bonus credit for what was already planned. On the other hand, you get to make this a big political football, with a great outcry making the repubs look bad by requiring food stamp cuts. At the same time, this creates a demand to make the temporary increase permanent so that when you do so you can claim that you're doing the will of the people so normal fiscal constraints don't apply--a wonderful claim to hurl at repubs.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. The Pentagon needs bombs more than those hungry kids need food.

"Family Values" Your Ass!

[nashville_brook]

10. you have to be kidding me! from $133 a month to $74 a month?

[Poboy]

11. They will not stop. People stealing for food, eating cat food, or dying in the streets.

God bless America and our treasonous 'leadership.

The social contract is BROKEN!

[reggie the dog]

24. I was born in 1979 and I never knew what a social contract was

until i moved to france in 2003 and discovered the word solidarity. america is dog eat dog, sink or swim and when we sink our duty for the common good is to just disappear either by becoming homeless and not asking for handouts, becoming addicted to drugs and not asking for handouts (small wonder heroin addiction is skyrocketing in the usa) or to just go all the way and kill ourselves, that is the social contract, if you need help just drop out, die or get too addicted to care but whatever you do DO NOT do anything that would make already rich people have any less money in their bank account.

[ipaint]

31. +1

Imagine democrats in congress standing in solidarity with people on food stamps and not only refusing to end the increase but making it permanent. Imagine their supporters standing in solidarity and demanding the increase be made permanent and the cost to support teachers jobs be extracted from the haves from now on.

[reggie the dog]

105. it is happening

Greece especially but we have many protests in France every time they try to cut the social system, sometimes we win and block the cuts, sometimes we lost but we block traffic, march and protest quite often in France, it is one of the things i love about my adopted country and something i wish we did more of in my birth country (the USA)

[Igel]

38. A lot of people don't believe they have an accent, either.

Then they move to another dialect area of the same language.

Some realize thay had an accent all along. Some spot the different accent around them, but continue to say they don't have an accent.

As a wise but bipolar instructor I once had said in regard to term papers, "You can never go wrong by stating the obvious. It's so seldom stated that many people are surprised that they never noticed it before and confuse the obvious with the profound."

[bobbolink]

108. "You can never go wrong by stating the obvious." That is a great quote!

It is really true, and put in a substantially different way, which makes it come to life for me.

Thanks!

[readmoreoften]

71. +1

[guitar man]

12. Eat the Rich nt

[another saigon]

15. I feel like I am in the reagun years again

once was bad enough. :(

[progressoid]

16. They aren't CUTS!!!

or so I've been told.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

34. They aren't cuts, and the Democrats' letter shows that

PDF

How can something be, as the OP claims, "unprecedented" when the increases were the result of the stimulus? Most people here criticized the hell out of the package, claiming it did nothing for poor Americans.

If there was no recession, there would have been no such increases.

Also, the fact remains that the amounts being paid out are not going to be immediately cut, not for years.

[progressoid]

43. ROFLMAPOTOMOS

:spray:

OK, it not a cut.

It is, as the letter you linked to says, "the most egregious case of robbing Peter to pay Paul"

From now on we'll call it robbery, OK? :)

[bobbolink]

17. They could REALLY, SERIOUSLY save money by offing all of us poor folk.

This planet is no longer hospitable to us poor folk, and many of us would welcome that parachute out of here.

Go for it, Dems.... some of us wouldn't mind at all.

[reggie the dog]

26. sell drugs to their kids

i am serious, i taught in the ghetto and i remember one student who was a drug dealer and proud to sell heroin and crack to pay the bills so his mother did not have to prostitute herself at the end of the month, he was proud to buy braces and glasses for his siblings and also proudly told me that he only sold his drugs to people like me (middle class white people) because he refused to poison his people (poor blacks). selling drugs to the rich and their kids is becoming the only way to pay doctor bills etc. what a sorry state

[Liberal_in_LA]

48. Awwww Bobblink

:hug:

[bobbolink]

54. Thanks. But I am really serious. Think of all the messages coming from diffferent directions

toward poor people.

We are being told every day, in many different ways, that we are no good, that it is our own fault, that we are ruining the country, etc etc etc.

Yet, when one more poor person takes the message to heart and tries to eliminate him/herself but fails, thousands and thousands of dollars are spent to look up that person.

Money they couldn't find to keep them alive and thriving.

Talk about CRAZY!! :crazy:

Yet, nobody questions it at all.

[Odin2005]

64. Get me a wormhole, I wanna go to a different universe!

[Lance_Boyle]

18. These are 'cuts' in the same way that allowing the bush tax cuts to expire is 'raising taxes.'

It is a dishonest argument. Funny how DU sees the dishonesty so clearly when the discussion is about allowing the bush tax cuts to expire, but has its blinders firmly in place when the discussion shifts to food stamps.

[ipaint]

23. They are a temporary increase.

Who is denying that. I'm saying the depression the poor are experiencing is not going to be magically over in 3.5 years despite what millionaires in the senate "believe". The temp increase should be open ended and eventually made permanent considering food isn't getting any cheaper. Of course you can also see that food stamps are inadequate to begin with, pre temporary increase, so cutting them in 3.5 years (or 2.5 years depending on what senate bill you are referring to) by ending the extra money will hurt millions of poor people. Isn't it disingenuous to not look at the human cost first before cutting much needed benefits.

And what would be the human cost in hunger and misery when the elites taxes go back up? Is there any real suffering predicted for that poor put upon crowd at the top.

[bobbolink]

47. You got it! Poverty isn't important here, save for a very few DUers.

The rest just yawn, so they miss most points.

[TheKentuckian]

50. Is there some present condition that indicates that the stimulus dollars should end earlier than

previously anticipated?

What is it that changed to revise need downward.

We understand exactly what is going on and no one has a real answer just twisting. The Bush tax cuts were not cut off early despite adding truly huge numbers to the deficit with no discernible benefit.

Is need trending down? Is there less need than anticipated? Is the economy on a trajectory that indicates a big improvement in conditions?

Nope, I don't see it. I see a program that is underresourced and unable to keep up with the ever increasing need that is being used as the catch all fund. Need education dollars? Take it out of food stamps. Need money for Michelle's pet project? Take it out of food stamps.

Then we are advised that we'll fix it later.
Well, which is it the program doesn't need the resources or are you taking a gamble on hungry Americans to placate the Reich?

[The Northerner]

21. More people will need the program when the recession worsens in the future

[inna]

25. K&R -

[dflprincess]

27. "Several Democrats have said they'll prevent the cuts...from ever taking effect"

Is this another one of those bad bills they're going to go back and "fix later"?

I'm losing track of how many of those there are.

[Joe Fields]

32. too goddamned many to suit this wise voter.

[VMI Dem]

35. Sounds both sensible AND pragmatic.

:sarcasm:

[Larry Ogg]

36. Oh but they outsourced our jobs so we couldn't pay for the roofs over our heads,

but it seems that maybe for some it was a choice between food or the roof over their head… "Oh but we can’t and won’t be fooled by this liberal trickery" said the predator class, "food stamps" can not be allowed to indirectly allow families to live inside…" "This is obviously a communist ploy, so we must applaud the actions of our incredibly wise leaders of whom the corporate gods ordained to protect us from the evils of socialized justice..." "Besides the American downsized homogenized ex-worker / looser class majority needs to understand that in much of the world food is not a luxury, it is a weapon that only we, the elite predator class uses at our discretion to control, as well as thin out the low life heard of conscience people, because…" Well... somebody has to do it, so it might as well be those who never had to work a day in their sorry fucking lives to feed their spawn, float their yachts, fly their corporate jets or plumb their pearl laced marble mansions with gold. As for wanting the American dream, and the land flowing with milk and honey… guess what… try eating shit… and don't get too upset because, like always you will get use to it, and probably start liking it...

[Blue_Tires]

39. and yet the intelligence community budget gets another exponential increase...

[JoePhilly]

40. HuffPo tells the same lie in new clothing ... EPIC FAIL!! unrec

There is no cut. A temporary INCREASE will expire earlier than originally planned. In 2014. Three years from now.

Food Stamp funding has increased, not decreased.

HuffPo doesn't even mention that the increase to Food Stamp funding was a TEMPORARY part of the stimulus. It was going to expire. It now expires a little earlier. AND ... the Dems want to extend it.

This "cut" lie is told, to discourage the left ... and judging by the response to the OP, that strategy appears to be working very well.

Wake up ... HuffPo is misleading you.

[inna]

41. oh puh-fucking-leez.

You can call these CUTS "an (early and unplanned) rollback of temporary increases" or whatever the heck you want to call them.

It doesn't change the fact that in practical terms these are CUTS to (decrease in) the actual benefits for the poor families.

Which is, btw, UNPRECEDENTED.

[JoePhilly]

51. Nothing has been cut.

You can whine all you want. Nothing was cut.

The Dems used an ACCOUNTING trick to get state aid passed against GOP obstruction.

That is what happened. Nothing else.

[inna]

73. You are demonstrably wrong.

And actually it is you who "can whine all you want" and have your absurd and ridiculous faux outrage about using the proper term "cuts" with regard to slashing at least $12 billion from the food stamps budget.


I do hope that you're simply misinformed on this issue. All the information is publicly available, you can always learn the facts.

The stimulus boost was meant to be gradually phased out (i.e., the benefit was to stay at the constant flat level until inflation caught up).

The food stamps stimulus money was never supposed to be diverted to other programs.


You want to call this "Accounting trick", fine. But the fact is that "accounting trick" will result in very real and significant *reductions to benefits* for the poor and the most vulnerable Americans (by $59/month per family in November 2013).

These are real cuts with real impact on low-income households who, for the first time ever in history of the program, will see their benefits fall from one month to the next.

And these are the people (41+ million Americans as of May 2010, to be precise) who live on $4.50 a day, even WITH the stimulus boost (which now will be TAKEN AWAY, NOT "phased out" due to inflation as it was supposed to be).

That number (41+ million Americans) is growing by a day, btw, thanks to this terrible economy, and the jobs are not coming back by 2014. These people are not some "welfare queens" on the government dole, these are mostly children, seniors, and victims of the economic downturn.



I really hope that you will educate yourself on this issue and demand that Congress restore these desperately needed benefits and return those $12 billion back to the food stamps fund.

I understand that $12 billion had to come from SOMEWHERE to pay for the teachers jobs bill, but it was taken from the worst possible source. It should NOT have been taken from the most vulnerable and poor.


Cutting food stamp benefits from families struggling to make ends meet is unconscionable. And again, such situation when families will see their actual monthly benefits reduced (by at least 13%, as of now) is UNPRECEDENTED.

Taking from the most vulnerable and poor is simply wrong. Those $12 billion should be returned to the food stamps fund, and thankfully many Congressional Democrats are working on that goal. They need our full support.

[inna]

113. k

[Fla_Democrat]

82. Just so I am straight on this

phasing out a temporary increase is indeed a cut, but when the other side says letting a decrease expire, is raising taxes.... it isn't? :shrug:


Nothing personal, anyone can answer, it's just a good spot to ask for clarification. :smoke:

[inna]

87. see post #73. The temporary increase was NOT phased out by inflation,

as it was supposed to be. For the first time in history of the food stamps program, recipients will face a decrease (by 13.6%) of their monthly benefits.

These are real cuts with real impact on the poorest Americans. This was NOT an acceptable place to take $12 billion from. This money was never meant to be taken away and diverted for other uses.

[ipaint]

42. Will poor people food budgets be cut? If so, it's a cut

whether it started out temporary or not. Cut, reduction, lowering, decline, markdown, shrink, take away, whatever you want to call it. It still means taking food away from people who can't afford to buy it to feed themselves and their kids.

You can't spin that by pretending it's a "tech fix".

[bobbolink]

45. I don't think "Joe" is concerned about the people involved.

Really, we are expendable.

Really, we are.

Joe sez so.

[JoePhilly]

55. Clearly you think State workers are expendible ... right???

I mean, you'd rather they lose their jobs NOW, rather then let the Dems use an accounting trick to save their jobs while those who get food stamps see an increase that will last at least until the end of 2014.

Catching on yet ... you hater of teachers!!!

No one is losing their food stamps. For the next 3 years, there is an INCREASE. And the DEMS created that increase.

[bobbolink]

56. my goodness... I hate teachers and I hate government workers.

That's quite a imaginary diatribe you got going there.

:crazy:

[JoePhilly]

61. Simply turned your diatribe against me back to you.

According to you, I hate people on food stamps.

And you, hate teachers.

[bobbolink]

74. Two things.... ONE, I never used the word "hate"....you DID.

TWO, you have't shown one bit of concern about people on foodstamps, which is the topic at hand here, while I have never said a negative word at all about teachers.

Classic fail.

Please, take a logic course, then try again.

[JoePhilly]

81. Your "logic" cracks me up.

Apparently, you can claim that YOU know how I feel about those on food stamps, but I can't claim to know how you feel about teachers and other state workers.

I simply pointed out that nothing has been cut. And that is simply a fact. And you decided to explain how I feel about those on food stamps. Which of course you can't know.

So, I simply used your position on THIS, to extrapolate your position on teachers (much like you did to me). Clearly you are anti-teacher and think they are expendable. Because if this bill did not pass, they would have lost their jobs right now, not in 3 years. Right?

I mean, you are more concerned about a POTENTIAL cut to food stamps (a cut that has not happened), than about teachers and other state workers losing their jobs RIGHT NOW. See how easy that was.

The Dems played a shell game with the GOP, and got the votes they needed to save those jobs. Now they will work to maintain that TEMPORARY INCREASE to food stamps. And I will support them as they do so. Which means your point "TWO" above is again, wrong.

Nice try though.

[ipaint]

84. What are they going to cut to maintain the temporary increase?

given we have demands for more long term unemployment compensation and job creation to fund, too.

The top level hoarders in this country are anti teacher, the banksters are anti teacher, RTTT is anti teacher, those protesting cuts to the SNAP program are anti- bullshit excuses, false choices and empty promises.

[bobbolink]

86. For many of us, party DOESN'T trump country, or citizens.

For many of you, that is all that matters.

And therein lies the difference.

Obviously, you are here, NOT in concern for people who are going hungry in this country, but but to defend and promote your star.

So be it. That will NEVER be resolved here, and you will NEVER convert us, especially with cruel words.

There is no point of any further argument, so... so long, and welcome to my ignore list.

[JoePhilly]

93. Oh no ... you will ignore me ... now my feelings are hurt.

Not so much.

[ipaint]

57. False choice. Your acting as if there aren't hundreds of billions in corporate welfare handouts

that couldn't be tapped for the money.

Are you worried the ceo's might go without caviar in 4 years.

The increase needs to last longer than 3 years unless you can tell me where we are going to come up with a few hundred thousands jobs a month starting yesterday so the economy can recover in 3 years. Where are the jobs????

We won't mention food stamps are pathetically inadequate pre-temp increase, another reason to make the current increase permanent. Too much for you to think about at the same time I fear.

[JoePhilly]

62. Yawn.

The Dems did not make the increase permanent in the stimulus, did they, no??? Did you SCREAM then?

Its an accounting trick. One that got a few GOP members to join. What you call for would NOT have obtained the needed votes to save the jobs of teachers and other state workers.

[JoePhilly]

52. Nothing has been cut.

You can whine all you want. Nothing was cut.

The Dems used an ACCOUNTING trick to get state aid passed against GOP obstruction.

That is what happened. Nothing else.

[ipaint]

59. So in three years no poor person on food stamps will see their allotment cut, yes? nt

[JoePhilly]

66. Worst case, theit allotment returns to pre-stimulus levels ...

Which would be true regardless. The increase in the stimulus was temporary. It was PLANNED to return to pre-stimulus levels.

Now ... you can argue that we should increase food stamp funding beyond what the stimulus did ... and that is an important discussion.

What you can not do is claim that Dems CUT Food Stamp funding. They INCREASED it. It is now higher than it was pre-stimulus.

And will remain higher through 2014. No cut has occurred.

[Joe Fields]

75. You are un-fucking believable.

:puke:

[JoePhilly]

94. And you appear to be immune to facts.

Look ... tell me this ...

Describe how YOU would have saved the teachers jobs and obtained the necessary votes to do so.

Just explain the tactics you would have used to get the 3 GOP votes.

Should be easy for you.

Well?


Or ... maybe the Dems should have let those teachers lose their jobs right now. You feel better then?

That would be, to use your words "un-fucking believable".

[dflprincess]

44. And we don't have to worry because in 2014 the economy will be great

and everyone will have a job that pays a living wage. Food prices will drop dramatically and even if they don't think of all that money we'll be saving on health care paying those mandated health insurance premiums - people can use that money for food!

:sarcasm:

[JoePhilly]

53. Neither you nor I know what 2014 looks like, do we??

What I know is that between now and then, folks on Food Stamps will see an INCREASE, not a cut.

[ipaint]

60. The cut I am protesting is in 2014 or 2013 depending on which bill

you are referring to. The senate is hitting food stamps twice. We wouldn't want to make the haves cough up a few billion, I hear they get pissy when they have to give up the equivalent of one night out a year.

[JoePhilly]

67. Why not CHEER the jobs they saved TODAY???

Why are you so focused on a potential return to prior levels in 3 or 4 years?

Looks like you are searching for a reason to be disappointed.

They found a way to save state jobs. They used an accounting trick to get the OBSTRUCTIONIST GOP to give us 3 votes.

Those bastards!!!!!

[ipaint]

72. The white house suggested a food stamp cut.

So why cut food stamps as the recovery is suddenly faltering? The short answer is, because Republicans insisted on it. Not food stamps specifically - that idea came from the White House, although no Republican objected. But Republicans compelled the cuts by insisting that any new spending measures, even on something as seemingly unobjectionable as saving teachers' jobs, be "offset'' in the budget. A grim necessity, they claimed, to prevent the deficit from killing the recovery. But that's a political argument, not an economic one.

"It was a lousy offset,'' said Democratic Representative Jim McGovern of Worcester, the co-chairman of the House Hunger Caucus. "We're robbing Peter to pay Paul.''

The justification offered by proponents was that food prices haven't risen as much as Congress expected them to, and therefore cutting benefits to hungry kids isn't really so bad, especially since the cuts won't take effect until 2014. The trouble is, forecasts aren't very rosy. It is projected that food stamp recipients will increase to 43.3 million next year, and beyond that, who knows? "President Obama pledged to end childhood hunger by 2015,'' McGovern pointed out. "It's hard to see how you do that while you're cutting food stamps.''

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/08/12-3

Even the white house calls it a cut.

[JoePhilly]

96. You are meeting me in the middle here ...

The GOP would not have supported anything. The GOP is focused on creating Gordian knots. Their intent is to ensure that any legislation that passes has some flaw in it. Something that can be used to dishearten the left.

Meanwhile, the rile up the right wing nuts.

While the GOP via the tea party is ready heading to town hall with pitch forks, the left is discouraged because anything good that passes is sold as terrible for the right, and terrible for the left, by the media.

[Joe Fields]

76. You have missed the point entirely.

Wall Street runs to the federal govt. with its collective hand out and Washington cannot shovel cash their way fast enough. And now our political assholes are so worried about offsets to pay for a jobs bailout that they place those offsets on the backs of the poor? You mean to tell me, that with all the bloat in our budget that there isn't some other way to pay for this jobs saving program?

Your mindset is all fucked up.

[JoePhilly]

92. First. Eat me.

If it is easy .... YOU explain where the votes were going to come from.

Do you think any member of the GOP would have saved these jobs by cutting something else?????

You claim there must be "some way" to pay for it .... please tell us YOUR proposal that would have obtained enough votes to break the filibuster. You should have no problem doing so. But you can't.

I know ... we should have let the teachers lose their jobs. That your brilliant plan??

[Larry Ogg]

58. You are absolutely right...

And did you know that the reason people in hell want "ice water" is because snowballs defy the laws of physics and run uphill? This of course follows the same scatological shit for brains conservative premises - of income disparity and preserving the status quo at the expense of everyone else - is a good thing; because defying the laws of logic and decency will somehow magically make us all much better off…
:sarcasm:

[JoePhilly]

65. Lots of words, not much point.

Food stamps have not been cut, they have actually increased, and state worker jobs have just been protected.

Those are the FACTS.

[Odin2005]

63. This is just plain evil.

:grr:

[JoePhilly]

68. Except food stamps were not cut.

But other than that, yes .... very evil.

:sarcasm:

[ipaint]

69. The program is being cut in 2014, 2013 if the senate bill to fund the first lady's program is passed

Need money, fuck the poor.

Given the distribution of wealth in this country where on earth do you expect democrats to cut??? The elite, hell no. :crazy:

[truedelphi]

78. What is "the first lady's program"

I have to confess to being ignorant about that program.

Any info appreciated.

[JoePhilly]

80. Not cut.

The program was going to phase out ANYWAY. They changed the date as an accounting trick to get 3 GOP votes.

No member of the GOP would have voted for it otherwise ... you do know that right??

The GOP is obstructing in this way for one reason, to create situations like this one to piss you off.

To make you angry about a PLANNED phase-out that does not happen for 3 years ... a phase out that the Dems still want to shift further into the future.

But look, you are discouraged. So stay home in 2010.

Let's get some more GOP folks in there because we know that they will work to find the money to extend such programs if given the chance.

[ipaint]

83. Tell that to these folks.

106 democrats write letter to pelosi protesting cuts to SNAP.

http://frac.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/snap001.pdf

Where is it written the dems plan to shift the phase out into the future? And now that all help to workers and the poor must be deficit neutral (bankers, the rich and their resource wars are exempt) what are they going to cut when that imaginary moment arrives?

As far as the upcoming elections, it's not my fault the populace that voted for systemic change is waking up to the lies they where fed on the campaign trail almost 2 years ago.
Bad timing for sure but not my fault. I did my homework two years ago.

[JoePhilly]

88. Obama is losing Independents, not the left.

I know this because his support among democrats remains roughly unchanged, at about 80%.

He is losing the middle because the right wing noise machine is getting people in the middle to believe he is a socialist. The "populace" you describe would not be lining up to vote GOP.

The middle follows the press, they hear the right wing trash him, they hear some on the left trash him, and the media paints all opposition (including yours) as being a direct response to his "doing too much". That's how it works.

And so they (the middle) conclude Obama is doing too much, and they move to the GOP.

By the way, the letter you refer to above recognizes the importance of HR 1586, which is why they did not oppose it. Thus helping to make my point about the urgency of that bill. They are not thrilled with the game they had to play to get passage, but they knew they needed to get that bill passed.

As for the Senate bill referenced, I hope the house does find a better way to fund it. No matter what, the GOP will be doing its very best to stop any action at all, or failing that, to muddy the waters as much as possible if something does pass. That is their strategy.

[ipaint]

70. White House Suggested Cutting Food Stamps to Pay for Education Program

Obey: White House Suggested Cutting Food Stamps to Pay for Education Program

Rep. Obey:


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

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

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

We were told we have to offset every damn dime of . Well, it ain’t easy to find offsets, and with all due respect to the administration their first suggestion for offsets was to cut food stamps. Now they were careful not to make an official budget request, because they didn’t want to take the political heat for it, but that was the first trial balloon they sent down here. … Their line of argument was, well, the cost of food relative to what we thought it would be has come down, so people on food stamps are getting a pretty good deal in comparison to what we thought they were going to get. Well isn’t that nice. Some poor bastard is going to get a break for a change."

http://washingtonindependent.com/91851/obey-white-house-suggested-cutting-food-stamps-to-pay-for-edujobs-funding

Looks like food stamps are first up on the chopping block regularly.
Screw the poor, no one cares.

[inna]

77. The craziest thing is that...

Months ago, the administration threatened to veto a House version of the teachers jobs bill because of the way it was funded. It was not funded by food stamps at that point (no one would even dare to suggest such an atrocity), but the way it was paid for required diverting $500 million from Obama's pet project, Race To The Top. Now, Race To The Top happens to be very well funded, and $500 is only a sliver of its budget.

The Administration categorically objected to diverting that small amount and it was the veto threat and a lot of pressure from the White House that killed that bill over a month ago. Get this - they would veto a desperately needed bill that would save 150,000 teachers jobs just because it required a small amount from the Duncan program (which is hated by the teachers and which kills jobs, btw). So, taking $500 million from Race To The Top is verboten and would be vetoed, but instead... the Administration suggests to cut $12 billion... - gasp! - from food stamps. I mean, do you believe this shit?? :crazy: :nuke:

[ipaint]

85. The real bizarre thing is if you protest ending the increased SNAP funding

you hate teachers.

Shit it is and they keep piling it higher and higher.

[JoePhilly]

95. I'm going to try again, but with a different tact.

The Dems increased funding for food stamps via the stimulus, the GOP opposed it. The Dems were correct to increase the funding.

The Dems now want to save the jobs of teachers. They do not have the votes. So, to get the 3 GOP votes they need, the key question is what should they do?

Well, they could ....

1) Do nothing. Let the GOP block the vote and kill those jobs. And then, the GOP would use the job losses as a political weapon in 2010.

2) They could try to make a cut that Democrats and the left would be happy with. This also fails. No one in the GOP will support that.

3) Find an accounting trick. Create a "future cut" to get the 3 votes.

Now, if there was a 4th choice that gets the votes, I'm all ears.

The GOP's strategy is to make sure that any bill that passes as some $#$% in it. They would prefer that NOTHING PASS. Failing that, they do what they can to get something in it to discourage the left.

That is half of their strategy. The other half is to see the "Obama is a Socialist" meme. Their intent, get the right wing nuts to vote, and get the left to stay home.

[ipaint]

99. Race to the top money.

"It’s been a week since the House approved a funding measure pushed by Rep. David Obey to save teachers’ jobs by taking $500 million away from President Obama’s Race to the Top education reform initiative, and the chatter about it is yet to die down. Obey’s effort and the must-pass war spending bill to which it was attached have scooted along to the Senate, but Obama has already threatened to veto any bill that dares touch his signature education reform, setting up an uneasy conflict between congressional Democrats and the White House.

Here’s the big picture: the ongoing recession, the accumulated impact of chronic underfunding of public education and the competing priorities of two wars have taken their toll on schools. Back in April, Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin pushed an emergency $23 billion proposal to save thousands of teachers’ jobs for the upcoming academic year. That went nowhere. So Rep. David Obey stripped it to a bare bones package and attached it to the House’s war spending bill.

The Obey package would provide $10 billion to an emergency fund to keep 140,000 teachers on schools’ payroll and set aside $5 billion for Pell Grants, which are federal grants for low-income undergrads.

Obey found the money by skimming a bit off from Race to the Top, which is a competitive grants program that awards cash to states adopting the Obama administration’s education reform agenda. He took another $300 million from a charter school fund and other Obama education initiatives. The $800 million package now awaits review by the Senate when legislators get back from summer break next week.

The hullaballoo Obey’s measure creates would be more understandable if Race to the Top weren’t already so well funded. Obey’s cuts are relative pennies to the initiative. It’s headed into a second round of awards—just two states made it through the first round—and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has still got $3.6 billion to work with, on a pilot program. Race to the Top has also already been promised $1 billion for next year."

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/07/will_obama_save_teachers_or_race_to_the_top.html

So instead of taking money from a program with plenty of it the white house "suggested" cutting the temporary increase to the already severely underfunded SNAP program early (2013).

Like I said, fuck the poor.

[JoePhilly]

109. Yes, but the house bill you refer to would not have passed in the senate ...

without the amendments that the Senate made.

And even with those, the bill only passed 61-39.

[bobbolink]

91. You must admit, pitting poor people against teachers is a damned good strategy.

Keep us fighting each other.

The really insane part of this is that many teachers already buy food for poor kids out of their own pockets, because the kids can't concentrate in school on an empty stomach. So, more teachers keeping their jobs, but paying more for hungry kids. And yet so many want to call homeless people CRAZY! This is about as crazy as it gets.

But wait, there's more.... Food Stamps are a great stimulus. For every ONE DOLLAR of food stamps, ONE DOLLAR AND SEVENTY FOUR CENTS are returned to the local economy.

Yup, this is BRILLIANT strategery.

:puke:

[ipaint]

100. This situation was easily avoidable. The Race to the Top program has plenty

of money to operate with more to come. The white house came up with the idea to cut the extra food stamp benefits early. Food stamps are grossly underfunded, even with the additional temporary food stamps the monthly benefit still doesn't amount to enough to feed a poor family.

[NuttyFluffers]

79. that's ludicrous, you want gov't to spend into a healthier economy...

and the one of the most powerful ways (possibly the most powerful way) to infuse spending back into the consumer cycle is food stamps. almost 100% of that money has to be spent by the recipients to survive -- which means an influx of cash to desperate merchants, growers and the like.

it's almost like these leaders want America to fail...

[bobbolink]

90. You're exactly right! Every dollar of food stamps returns $1.74 to the local economy.

It doesn't get much better than that!

Thank you for bringing this up... a point I momentarily forgot.

[niyad]

97. this is a point that needs to be driven home to these hate-filled morans --although I seriously

doubt it would get through their walls of ignorance, hatred and denial.

[bobbolink]

98. There are many, many people between the "morans" on one side, and the very few liberals

who GET THIS on the other side.

There are lots of LIBERALS who don't get this, who don't know this, and, frankly, don't really give a good gawd damn about people who need food stamps. A person doesn't have to read DU for very long to see that.

There are liberals and independents who need to hear this, but we don't have people who are willing to spread this message. And I'm not talking about the corporate media.

When do you hear Thom Hartmann stressing this fact? When do you hear Keith Olbermann stressing this fact? And on down the line of the "progressive media".

What are DUers doing to make this reality known? There are things that could be done in this regard, but when I bring it up, I am basically told to do it myself.

[Phillip Walker]

102. That would hurt

a lot of kids. Where are the "pro-lifer" hypocrites on this?

[bobbolink]

104. More importantly, and more to the point, where are the "liberals"?

You see, we poor folk don't have a group we can rely on to speak up for us.

We are on our own.

[Liberation Angel]

110. If Obama approves of this he =Clinton on Welfare which destroyed millions of lives

Since Clinton on this issue = Bush then the conclusion I would have to make is that Obama =Bush (on this issue).

I sure as hell hope Obama does not = Bush

Foodstamps are literally lifelines to the starving poor and oppressed in our country.

Welfare used to be the same thing (while flawed it was necessary)

Clinton turned the welfare state into a hopeless slave state via workfare which is, in practice, chattel slavery, indentured servitude and as such is a disgrace.

I work with the oppressed on a daily basis in the inner city and urban ghettoes.

Such cuts literally are murder.

i hope Obama is not one of those in our own country (don't get me started on drones, assassinations and collateral damage which as murder under Bush and is still murder under Obama imho)

[inna]

112. It was the Administration's idea, actually.

Much to dismay of Congressional Democrats, btw.

The whole story is simply shocking and more than a little frightening.

[inna]

114. k