GOP bill : if one member of your family strikes, no food stamps for the entire family

That's some sick bill right there. Cutting food stamps to kids because one parent strike... then the parent have to decide between their kids eating or following their convictions.... This is an impossible choice for many and people shouldn't be put in that situation.

Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes

Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer

Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.

With a record 42 million Americans on food stamps during these poor economic times, it appears that the right is simply looking for more ways to hurt working class Americans.

They are REALLY looking for trouble. I'm pretty sure no actual representative wrote this thing, but the sickos lobbyists who did should have payback...

Actually, there should be a law passed that ANYONE WHO WRITES ANYTHING IN A BILL SHOULD BE LISTED AT THE END OF SAID BILL.

That way, we could see who are the scum who REALLY are writing the bills.

More truth, more draconian and Orwellian policies courtesy of The Neo ConserviBaggers. Why would anyone still want to be apart of this New Nazi party?

It's blackmail. No more. No less.

So in essence, what they're saying is 'you WILL tow the line, or we'll starve you and all your family until you do'.

Wonderful.

good catch

this is how it will go
inhouse fema camps

oh yeah no food for you, or no water, no heat, no hydro...
no you can't have your kid back oathkeeper
PS
guns next

PPS as ki$$a$$inger said
oil controls countries
food controls people

I hate to say it but you people are unaware IMO if you still buy into the democrat/republican puppet show. Grow a spine and stand up for what you believe in, don't just bitch about it.

Oh and BTW, next time you see ass versus donkey, think of a double headed coin.

a double headed
fiat coin....
NOT worth the bubble gum its printed on....

90 percent were against the banker bailout
you got a bail out...

the only REAL party is the wild party
bankers and beatches only...
( well, franklin savings and lone scandle typos like little boys)
no regular folks invited.

If you strike, be prepared for what happens. Gaining access to benefits like foodstamps and such make it easy to strike. There is nothing to lose. If you wan to strike, then the union should bear the responsibility, not the tax payer.
Sorry, but this is sour grapes.

still gets passed to the tax payer
in this day and age many famillies have adult children move back...
no work because the big corps GOT TAX BREAKS to move OFFSHORE

so this is an attempt at holding familly, CHILDREN, could be GRAND CHILDREN hostage ..
punishment with out a trial

and IT WILL LEAD TO more and more..
next: food stamps for guns

this is just a way to get the camels nose under the tent

why not stop to welfare to illegal aliens first?
that would save the tax payer some dough

oh wait that would mess up the next amnasty bill
naw, that would be to easy

While everything swings on a pendulem, it makes you
wonder if the scales will crash before they swing back.

Is what I really do not understand is this. The people
you voted for these Robber-Barons understand they
are voting against themselves and their families.

If they looked at what the Wisconsin legislature did,
the Minnisota legislature passed (stripping voting results).
My own state, TN arrested numerous people on the
first day of a small protest over unions saying "this is
not WI."

All of these Governors and GOP legislatures are
bought and paid for by big business who want
nothing more than the return to company towns.

That is why they pushed the Supreme Court case
"Citizens United". How is that for a slap in the
face. It had nothing to do with uniting citizens but
everything to do with sucking us dry.

Corporations want to run our education, our prison/jails,
retirement/social security. They want us to have to
look to them for everything just like we did in the mid-late
1800's to early 1900's. Before unions gave workers
benefits and stopped child labor and sweat shops.

Now they want that back. Now they have the
politicians bought and paid for to accomplish it. Now
they some voters to busy to really pay attention to
the issue, to ignorant and jaded to give a damn or
to apathetic to care enough to vote either way.

Blackmail.
Hmmmmm
Like when the unions said "support us or lose our services?"

Striking an employer is a risk. Usually due to wages, safe working environment, etc. Today? they strike if they have to pay for their health insurace, they strike if they can't afford to live in a bigger house.

Our society has become so damned "entitlement-based" that it's second nature to accept the peurile demands set forth by any number of unions or groups.
It's sad that much of America now made up of the gimme gimme gimme crowd. No longer do we hear terms like "sweat equity", "personal responsibility", "individualism".

The collective must be fed, therefore we must feed the collective. Sad.

reply to post by beezzer


So you're in favor of big government getting involved in private business, so long as it meets your own anti-worker partisan agenda? Okay. Just say so.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you're in favor of big government getting involved in private business, so long as it meets your own anti-worker partisan agenda? Okay. Just say so.

Explain.
Anti-worker? Nope. Anti-whiner? Yes. And this isn't government getting involved. It's government NOT getting involved. When you get subsidies (foodstamps et al) it is from the government.

And partisan? Pot/kettle much?

although I don't agree with some unions tactics
business is business
collective bargaining has threats that go both way

Beezer, I see you are anti union
unions don't make laws republicans and/or democrcats do
so your comparison is out of wack

notice they left out cops in WI?
cause they are now federalized nazis

this is not an isolated move
it is part of a continuing push toward the bankers fav model
CHINA

well just replace the union hall with anti suicide nets

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by beezzer

 

So you're in favor of big government getting involved in private business, so long as it meets your own anti-worker partisan agenda? Okay. Just say so.

Explain.

Easy enough. This rider tells people on government assistance that if they get into a dispute with their employer and exercise their rights, then they will have their assistance removed. That is, extremely blatantly, the government getting involved in a private dispute between management and labor, and very blatantly coming down in management's side by punishing the worker.

In other words, if you're working poor, uncle sam says tough #, take whatever your king, er, boss dishes out to you.

And the supreme irony of it is, this is from the same people who are always trying to tell us that people on government assistance never have jobs. So this actually ends up punishing the proven exception to that particular chunk of propaganda. How fun.

Anti-worker? Nope.

Well, that's a blatant lie.

Anti-whiner? Yes.

Is self-loathing fun, then? I wouldn't know.

And this isn't government getting involved. It's government NOT getting involved. When you get subsidies (foodstamps et al) it is from the government.

Are the businesses involved in the labor dispute losing their tax breaks and subsidies, then? No? Right, didn't think so. it's plain and simple punishment handed down from the government on taxpaying citizens who want a better contract with their bosses.

But then you've tried to compare a boycott to la cosa nostra, so, can't expect deep logic from your corner, I suppose.

And partisan? Pot/kettle much?

Not at all. For starters, I'm not the one running around announcing that I'm a teabagger.

reply to post by beezzer

The collective must be fed, therefore we must feed the collective. Sad.

What would be your solution Beezer, dont feed them? Why are you so keen to see a race to the bottom when it comes to the working rights of your fellow American.

Originally posted by Danbones

Beezer, I see you are anti union
unions don't make laws republicans and/or democrcats do
so your comparison is out of wack

Not really. Politicians of both stripes are HEAVILY influenced by unions. Look at the MILLIONS that went into Obama's pockets from unions. Some could say that all that money should have been put towards the workers themselves. Although most union leaders would say that the money IS going to the workers by influencing the politicians.

Unions can strike all day long for all I care.
I just don't want to subsidize their actions.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by beezzer

 

The collective must be fed, therefore we must feed the collective. Sad.

What would be your solution Beezer, dont feed them? Why are you so keen to see a race to the bottom when it comes to the working rights of your fellow American.

With the money "donated" by the unions to political campaigns, the selfsame unions could keep striking families in steak and lobster for YEARS! But union leaders could give two hoots about union people. They only care about their own power grabs.

reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I belong to the Tea Party. If you continue to use derogatory terms to support your arguements then you have distinguished yourself among the elite class of bigots, haters, and biased folk. Congratulations.

Why point fingers at the government when you should be looking at the unions who have millions that refuse to help the very people they claim to represent?

I see hypocracy and a blindness to reality that is simply astonishing.

reply to post by beezzer


Beezer, I just feel I should inform you, since you seem confused on a nearly cosmic level.

Those millions donated to obama? They actually came from the workers in those unions. See, unions donate to political campaigns through funds raised by independent donations from union members. That is, your union rep is like "Our union is standing behind Candidate Bob. Anyone want to give a donation for Candidate Bob's campaign?" and if you do want to give a donation, you do. if you think Candidate Bob should die in a fire, you don't, and make your own independent donation to Candidate Dan.

Unions cannot make their donations from collected dues. That's actually a federal crime. if you know of a union local doing this, please, call your DA.