Amid Lopsided Recovery, Republicans Plan Cuts to Food Stamp Program

Below is a link to the WSJ article. It appears the OP's source relied heavily on creative editing and sensationalism.

WSJ

So topics (from a satirical perspective).

Lets tackle the easiest first, jobs created. The amount of jobs created is 'Zero' if you think that Obama or his administration had anything to do with job creation. No you say...let me explain, a government job filled in any branch of the government is spending tax dollars to create/fill that job. So since Tax dollars are need to create that job then taxes have to be raised on the private sector to pay for that job, which in turn causes the private sector to cut jobs, because lets face it profits will be made by the private sector within a certain acceptable margin..gasp even at the expense of firing workers.

So that leads us to the rise in cost of food and rent, what taxes have been steadily raised since 2007? Fuel and property, the first has the greater effect. Fuel runs this country, everything is shipped via Trucks(and in some smaller cases trains) trucks need fuel, the higher the cost of fuel the more it costs to ship said products resulting in the added cost going to the consumer (see acceptable profit margin statement above). Also tied into this great bit of taxation is "global warming' yeah you know who you are, you bought into that one hook, line and sinker quicker than a Christian at a tent revival gets baptized. So new regulations on factories and vehicles in the form of penalties(taxes) or retooling to meet regulations or research & development, all theses costs get pushed into the product and ultimately end up with the consumer(see acceptable profit margin above). So how does this tie into rent, well your land lord is a consumer, hes paying more for his stuff and hes passing the cost onto you.

Benefits ok so a little more cloudy because i'm not quite sure which ones you mean, retirement, healthcare, social security, unemployment, robotic arms for quadriplegic midget hamsters? just accept that your bill got higher because you voted for Obamacare and stop whining (yes it's BIG INSURANCE..GASP who knew?).

Unions...ok, so touchy for you northerners who sit on your butt all day and work 15 minutes then get paid like a southern Brain Surgeon..I get it I would love to show up to work, not have to do anything, have no real skills, but in turn get a secured paycheck and retirement for life on the companies dime, sounds great for the worker, but in reality costs corporations billions a year which in turn is passed to the consumer blah blah blah see profit margin above...Oh and causes those corporations to do things like move their headquarters to Guam where they get a better tax rate restructure and then all the union people are screwed too..GO UNIONS!

And the last one Social programs, or as I like to call them 'Voting Farms for the Democratically indoctrinated'. On the surface they hold all the charm and love as a new born puppy, soft warm, fluffy, full of rainbows and hope for the future, but under the surface they are full of scandal, misuse, misappropriation, corruption, inefficiency and down right awful DMV workers who hate that they have to see the scum of the world every day asking for a handout. Oh and did I mention don't actually help people reenter the workforce?

originally posted by: jtma508
a reply to: FyreByrd


Woah, woah, woah, there buddy. Are you suggesting we take money out of the pockets of the military industrial complex to help feed the poor? What are you some socialist commie? You want North Korea or East Timor invading the US?

Na the king of england will come back :p

Or those pesky canadians will pour down from the north and burn DC again :p

originally posted by: mikell
Well they discovered cutting unemployment extensions made people go back to work maybe cut food to the breeders will make them get out of bed and go looking for work.

Except it didn't. The latest numbers put our workforce participation rate at the lowest point since the statistics were kept and shadowstats put's our real unemployment rate (they use government numbers) at a rate higher than the great depression. Other documents place it at 50% higher than the depression.

People are not working, they're just going homeless.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Because hard work is just that: hard. Why go out and get a job and work when you can sit at home and not, but still get paid for it?

Welfare systems are supposed to be a hand UP, not a hand OUT. Are there people out there who qualify for welfare systems entirely on merit? Absolutely yes. Are there people out there who abuse the system and/or work hard to make sure they qualify for welfare systems? Equally absolutely yes.

And taking care of children is hard work. It's not respected as such (because it's unpaid work), but it is the most important work in any society. Many of those on food stamps work full-time (including militiary families) and try to raise children too and they need all the help we can give them - how are they (many are single parents) supposed to work more?

Learn more about who the program helps before you paint hard working people as lazy.

originally posted by: anton74
Below is a link to the WSJ article. It appears the OP's source relied heavily on creative editing and sensationalism.

WSJ

And the wall street journal is a tool of :

Three months later, on August 1, 2007, News Corporation and Dow Jones entered into a definitive merger agreement.[25] The US$5 billion sale added The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's news empire, which already included Fox News Channel, financial network unit and London's The Times, and locally within New York, the New York Post, along with Fox flagship station WNYW (Channel 5) and MyNetworkTV flagship WWOR (Channel 9).[26]

Rupert Murdoch...

and we all know his committment to the truth.

I'll quote a bit from the article you reference and it's not news not facts but storytelling and partisan cheerleading by the [scarasm] fair and balanced [scarasm] Fox News outlet.

Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R., Texas), who is leading the charge, said he wants to stay away from the type of party politics that can doom reforms before they are proposed. But as the son of a roughneck on oil rigs, he said he favors the kind of hard work that “built America,” suggesting any changes will lead to a smaller program and fewer recipients.

“The program was structured when malnutrition was a real problem,” said Douglas Besharov, a professor of public policy at the University of Maryland. “It has now become a form of income support.”

And of course malnutrition is actually worse in these times of McFood.

Hey I found a fact:

The program dates back to the 1930s, when unemployment was high, and was made permanent in 1964.

And nowadays, the employed can't afford enough decent food for their families.

I'd say your quoted article is more biased then the one I refered to. Biased in favor of hurting those members of our society that are still hurting from the policies of the last 40 years.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Yea I, and my kids, were actually on food stamps for a while. And Medicaid. Notice I said "a while" because I was embarrassed to be on them and worked my ass off to get off both programs.

Perhaps learn about who you're trying to talk down to before talking down to them?

I didn't paint hard working people as lazy. I made a clear differentiation between legitimate recipients of welfare and those who game the system. If you truly believe nobody games the system, you need to take the blinders off.

You said in another comment that these programs help people who have been screwed by policies over the last 40 years. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the republicans haven't controlled congress and the White House for the last 40 years have they? I feel like the democrats have been in there once or twice maybe.

ETA- Oh, probably germane to note that I was at the time, and still am, a single dad with custody of my two kids. And am also ex military.

I know the food stamp budget has increased significantly since the crash brought on by Wall Street Fraud in 2008, but I would be curious to know if the allotment per person adjusted for inflation has decreased or increased historically going back 30 years.

Anyone know?

More divisive scare tactics. Surely they can't be this naive. Too bad they don't live in areas affected by cuts sorely needed by low income, disable people and rising poverty. Who cares anyway just send in the draconian authorities to take care of the hurting masses(sarc).

originally posted by: dreamingawake
More divisive scare tactics. Surely they can't be this naive. Too bad they don't live in areas affected by cuts sorely needed by low income, disable people and rising poverty. Who cares anyway just send in the draconian authorities to take care of the hurting masses(sarc).

Those areas of poverty are the direct result of the politics, there is a reason Detroit and other areas that 'need' cuts are a ghost town and its not because of GOP policy or Democrat Reform Policies, its a mixture of failed policy all the way around federal and local (State & Municipal). The real problem is when you rely on government to solve your problems, they are most definitely not in the problem solving business.

only commenting on the cut the military...

Where?

Because if you just scream cut the military, all they will do is cut it ar the boots on the ground level.

Last I heard they still hadn't cut the generals they were supposed to something like 4 years ago.

They won't touch the kick backs that go into awarding contracts, unless the people apply the pressure.

So the next time you mindlessly spew cut the military industrial complex, please be aware the cuts they will make will have an effect on the men and women deploying to a war zone.

Educate and apply the right kind of pressure to actually save money.

End hijack I apologize, I now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan attacks.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
only commenting on the cut the military...

Where?

Because if you just scream cut the military, all they will do is cut it ar the boots on the ground level.

Last I heard they still hadn't cut the generals they were supposed to something like 4 years ago.

They won't touch the kick backs that go into awarding contracts, unless the people apply the pressure.

So the next time you mindlessly spew cut the military industrial complex, please be aware the cuts they will make will have an effect on the men and women deploying to a war zone.

Educate and apply the right kind of pressure to actually save money.

End hijack I apologize, I now return you to your regularly scheduled partisan attacks.

Believe it or not the Army's reduction has seen a total this year of 537(since Oct 2014) which is above the projected 513 total losses, current plans up to 2017 project a total reduction of 25-30% of total forces, that is through natural attrition, separation and retirement. The dark side is some who have served for a considerable amount of time who are within sight of retirement will just be given walking papers. Keep in mind the total armed services including coast guard and reserves is less than .8% of the total population of the US, that means your fighting men and women comprise the smallest minority of government workers, yet the first step is always reduce their pay and benefits. What you should look at is the only government organization that gets to make their own pay raises and gets retirement at full pay(including future pay raises) for serving as little as one term...that's right Congress.

Maybe they will try to smooth over the Obama cuts that are already law.



Nothing like shifting blame eh.

In fiscal year 2011, federal expenditures for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food Stamps)—$78 billion—and participation in the program were the highest they have ever been

www.cbo.gov...

Why just give them free food, make them work for it, the government could buy a lot of farm land and seeds for 78 billion dollars. put those who can to work on government farms growing food for themselves and to be distributed in place of food stamps. everyone else has to work for their food so why shouldn`t the food stamp folks?
if you won`t even work to feed yourself then you have much bigger problems than the government can solve.

a reply to: Tardacus

Veterans work, single mothers work, lots of people work. Their incomes just don't go far enough.

You could help. Do you contribute to local food bank? We all have to deal with the system at hand til voters demand better.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I agree with what you said about the military and so on but the congress thing? Pretty sure that's bunk.

www.politifact.com...

But that's not quite as exciting a tidbit to spout.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I agree with what you said about the military and so on but the congress thing? Pretty sure that's bunk.

www.politifact.com...

But that's not quite as exciting a tidbit to spout.

Might possibly be true I defer to your website's expertise on that point, but allow me to counter point with these statistics of actual spending for FY14 from www.usgovernmentspending.com...

Total Government Spending
in the United States
Federal, State, and Local
Fiscal Year 2014

Government Pensions + $1.2 trillion (does not include Military Pensions)
Government Health Care + $1.3 trillion
Government Education + $0.9 trillion
National Defense + $0.8 trillion
Government Welfare + $0.5 trillion
All Other Spending + $1.4 trillion
Total Government Spending + $6.0 trillion
Federal Deficit + $0.5 trillion

or for just Congress:
The amount of retirement income Members of Congress receive from taxpayers is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. For example, a member elected before 1984 and thus qualifying under the CSRS plan, who worked for 22 years and who had a top three-year average salary of $154,267 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,847 per year.[3] A member elected after 1984 would have been enrolled under the FERS plan, and their pension payment under similar conditions ($154,267 top three-year average salary, but with only 20 years of service, rather than the 22 in the CSRS example) would be $52,451.[3]
In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000.[4] As of November 2014, senior Members of Congress who have been in office for at least 32 years can earn about $139,000 a year.[5]
3. www.senate.gov...=11
4. money.cnn.com...
5. money.cnn.com...



And Rarely does a congress(Person) spend one term in office.

originally posted by: rupertg

www.whitehouse.gov...