If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Roll Call)   Republicans cut food stamps: CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE CLUTCHERS OF PEARLS. Democrats cut food stamps: get on out there and do your thing, little cricket   (blogs.rollcall.com) divider line 98
    More: Obvious, Democrats, food stamps  
•       •       •

1583 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Dec 2013 at 10:40 AM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-12-10 09:16:52 AM
finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.

That's called compromise.  They must not realize that it's gone out of style.
 
2013-12-10 09:26:39 AM

vpb: finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.

That's called compromise.  They must not realize that it's gone out of style.


It's not compromise. They start with something insane like $40,000,000,000 in cuts to SNAP over ten years. Then they lower the amount they want to cut. Republicans have no conscience and Democrats have no spine.

There should be NO cuts to the program. Who else is going to buy all that lobster?
 
2013-12-10 09:26:49 AM
Ah.  Same logic behind saying the Democrats shut down the government.  Got it.
 
2013-12-10 09:33:55 AM
I have come to the conclusion that the GOP isn't the party of ideas.  Because even when their ideas are implemented by the Democrats (see Obamacare), they flip shiat and start flinging poo.

If they were the adults in the room they imagine themselves to be, they would say "We welcome this approach to reign in spending and are glad that the Democratic party agrees with us."  Or some such thing.

But, no, they'll yell and scream that Obama wants your grannie to starve and Sister Sarah will be yelling on her Facebook about "Liberals are making Americans go hungry while sending money overseas."

I so hate the GOP anymore.  Flames, flames on the side of my face...heaving, heaving flames.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-12-10 09:52:27 AM

BladBoy: I have come to the conclusion that the GOP isn't the party of ideas.  Because even when their ideas are implemented by the Democrats (see Obamacare), they flip shiat and start flinging poo.

If they were the adults in the room they imagine themselves to be, they would say "We welcome this approach to reign in spending and are glad that the Democratic party agrees with us."  Or some such thing.

But, no, they'll yell and scream that Obama wants your grannie to starve and Sister Sarah will be yelling on her Facebook about "Liberals are making Americans go hungry while sending money overseas."

I so hate the GOP anymore.  Flames, flames on the side of my face...heaving, heaving flames.


That Cruz coloring book thread yesterday was just making me angry. I couldn't read it anymore as I was just getting more and more pissed off at the right's lying, hypocritical, brainwashing bullshiat.

I'm never voting republican for anything. Fark them and their 'Shooting your foot with a bazooka' style of governing.
 
2013-12-10 10:00:14 AM
Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"
 
2013-12-10 10:05:11 AM
It's not cutting food stamps. It's cutting energy subsidies.
 
2013-12-10 10:10:05 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: It's not cutting food stamps. It's cutting energy subsidies.


More to the point, it's not who's spending the money... more likely it's where the money is going:
img.photobucket.com


(Picture is clicky to source)
 
2013-12-10 10:25:08 AM

Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"


You'll notice that most of the right's criticisms of democrats boils down to 'See, they're as bad as us!'
 
2013-12-10 10:44:39 AM

NeverDrunk23: Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"

You'll notice that most of the right's criticisms of democrats boils down to 'See, they're as bad as us!'


A lot of their argument seems to be trying to make President Obama look more like President W Bush...that being the case, it makes their frothing, blind rage all the more perplexing. You'd think they'd be thrilled...
 
2013-12-10 10:46:48 AM
$8 billion over TEN f*cking years.

Were these gargantuan budget savings really so necessary that we need to take food out of the mouths of people who are hungry? Can we balance it against Republican waste, like say... $24 billion wasted in a pointless shutdown? This sh*t is downright evil, to take first from the most vulnerable.
 
2013-12-10 10:49:04 AM

BladBoy: I have come to the conclusion that the GOP isn't the party of ideas.  Because even when their ideas are implemented by the Democrats (see Obamacare), they flip shiat and start flinging poo.

If they were the adults in the room they imagine themselves to be, they would say "We welcome this approach to reign in spending and are glad that the Democratic party agrees with us."  Or some such thing.

But, no, they'll yell and scream that Obama wants your grannie to starve and Sister Sarah will be yelling on her Facebook about "Liberals are making Americans go hungry while sending money overseas."

I so hate the GOP anymore.  Flames, flames on the side of my face...heaving, heaving flames.


[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-10 10:49:39 AM
www.bartcop.com
 
2013-12-10 10:50:10 AM
Is the WIC Program even on the table, here?  Did some IT work for WIC, and they always seemed bullet-proof.  Albeit not an 'entitlement' program.
 
2013-12-10 10:52:13 AM
Hmmm... I wasn't expecting food riots until 2020 at least.  Seems like the US is going to be the first of the first world countries to join the third world in this growing tradition.
 
2013-12-10 10:53:38 AM
It's the telephone game!

Democrats: We can close an energy subsidy loophole that allows assistance for people who otherwise wouldn't qualify.

This Blog: Democrats Cutting Food Stamps!

Subby: Demoncraps are Hipocrites!

Next: Purple Monkey Dishwasher!
 
2013-12-10 10:54:04 AM
Clearly, the solution here is to vote Republican, right?

Diogenes: Ah.  Same logic behind saying the Democrats shut down the government.  Got it.

Don't forget Afghanistan being Obama's war, too.
 
2013-12-10 10:54:37 AM

vpb: finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.

That's called compromise.  They must not realize that it's gone out of style.


Republicans, in their quest to hatef*ck the tu quoque fallacy into submission, desperately grasp at perceived Democratic hypocrisy only to further highlight how out of touch they are.
 
2013-12-10 10:54:52 AM

Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"


Only one side phrases everything like this as being done out of hatred for the poor.

Dems phrase everything Republicans do as sinister because scared fools buy it and vote. When Dems do similar actions their pragmatism kicks in and they work to justify or defend it.

Dems have a cognitive defect so they usually respond to attempts to point it out with derision. It's a reflexive instinct. A safeguard for their ignorance.
 
2013-12-10 10:58:16 AM
This is further evidence that the fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats is a preference for Type I vs Type II errors.  Rather than making a broad based cut which would undoubtedly exclude deserving people, the Democrats are offering a targeted cut which will only eliminate undeserved subsidies.
 
2013-12-10 11:00:23 AM

Mrbogey: Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"

Only one side phrases everything like this as being done out of hatred for the poor.

Dems phrase everything Republicans do as sinister because scared fools buy it and vote. When Dems do similar actions their pragmatism kicks in and they work to justify or defend it.

Dems have a cognitive defect so they usually respond to attempts to point it out with derision. It's a reflexive instinct. A safeguard for their ignorance.


We're talking IMAX levels of projection here.
 
2013-12-10 11:00:54 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: $8 billion over TEN f*cking years.

Were these gargantuan budget savings really so necessary that we need to take food out of the mouths of people who are hungry? Can we balance it against Republican waste, like say... $24 billion wasted in a pointless shutdown? This sh*t is downright evil, to take first from the most vulnerable.


There appears to be a loophole in the system that enabled some people to claim more benefits from the food stamp program than they would/should otherwise be qualified to receive. This closes that loophole. It seems a lot less like "taking food out of the mouths of the hungry" and a bit more like "not giving people money when they can clearly afford it on their own." I'll reserve outrage until I learn a few more details, but it's not looking like the complete dick move you make it out to be.

Also, $8 billion over ten years is a lot more savings than the ~$200billion per year that Republicans would have "saved" had they succeeded in cutting federal funding for the CPB.
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-10 11:02:06 AM

Mrbogey: Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"

Only one side phrases everything like this as being done out of hatred for the poor.

Dems phrase everything Republicans do as sinister because scared fools buy it and vote. When Dems do similar actions their pragmatism kicks in and they work to justify or defend it.

Dems have a cognitive defect so they usually respond to attempts to point it out with derision. It's a reflexive instinct. A safeguard for their ignorance.


When you consider that $8 billion is a pittance compared to potential savings that could be found hundreds of other places in the budget (*cough* defense contracts), the fact that the least productive Congress in history chooses this legislation to work on, it's hard to see it as anything but spite for the poor.

This is not a serious effort to reign in spending, it's a show of good faith in pushing the corporatist 1%er bullsh*t agenda in an effort to distract from real inequality by shouting "Moochers over there!"
 
2013-12-10 11:03:22 AM

neversubmit: [www.bartcop.com image 720x540]



They do grow pretty good weed in Owsley County.
That's how the sheriff's department subsidizes their low pay.

*cranks up "Copperhead Road"*
 
2013-12-10 11:05:50 AM
Gee, why did this blog not list the name of one democratic person making suggestions along these lines?

You just can't find good concern trolls anymore
 
2013-12-10 11:07:46 AM
If Republicans get their feelings hurt when their actions are called sinister, maybe they should stop doing sinister things.
 
2013-12-10 11:07:56 AM

Smidge204: UrukHaiGuyz: $8 billion over TEN f*cking years.

Were these gargantuan budget savings really so necessary that we need to take food out of the mouths of people who are hungry? Can we balance it against Republican waste, like say... $24 billion wasted in a pointless shutdown? This sh*t is downright evil, to take first from the most vulnerable.

There appears to be a loophole in the system that enabled some people to claim more benefits from the food stamp program than they would/should otherwise be qualified to receive. This closes that loophole. It seems a lot less like "taking food out of the mouths of the hungry" and a bit more like "not giving people money when they can clearly afford it on their own." I'll reserve outrage until I learn a few more details, but it's not looking like the complete dick move you make it out to be.

Also, $8 billion over ten years is a lot more savings than the ~$200billion per year that Republicans would have "saved" had they succeeded in cutting federal funding for the CPB.
=Smidge=


I do understand how the loophole works, and I also understand that many states were using the $1 in energy credits to push food out the door to hungry families. The point is, there are a lot of food insecure people in the U.S., many of whom occupy the painful threshold between making slightly too much to qualify for benefits but not enough to get ahead.

If my tax dollars are being "wasted" to the tune of $8 billion over ten years to feed Americans, I'm okay with that, considering how much of my taxes go to bloated Pentagon and security state bullsh*t.
 
2013-12-10 11:07:56 AM
Oh yeah, we all love cutting food stamps now that the Dems say they want to do it.
 
2013-12-10 11:08:52 AM
There seem to be a lot of whiny right-wingers getting greenlit these days.
 
2013-12-10 11:13:22 AM

Mrbogey: Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"

Only one side phrases everything like this as being done out of hatred for the poor.

Dems phrase everything Republicans do as sinister because scared fools buy it and vote. When Dems do similar actions their pragmatism kicks in and they work to justify or defend it.

Dems have a cognitive defect so they usually respond to attempts to point it out with derision. It's a reflexive instinct. A safeguard for their ignorance.


Mine was better.
 
2013-12-10 11:14:11 AM
This is good news for anyone that has investments in food industries.  Because less food stamps means less consumption.  Wait, did I say "good news"?  Nix that.
 
2013-12-10 11:22:52 AM
"Though most Democrats would prefer the maximum benefits to be paid out--they often point to a Moody's study that estimates that each dollar the federal government spends on food stamps generates $1.70 of economic activity--finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House."

"Though most Democrats would prefer the maximum benefits to be paid out--they often point to a Moody's study that estimates that each dollar the federal government spends on food stamps generates $1.70 of economic activity--finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.
"

"Though most Democrats would prefer the maximum benefits to be paid out--they often point to a Moody's study that estimates that each dollar the federal government spends on food stamps generates $1.70 of economic activity--finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House."


This is the part that bears repeating. Despite the fact that food stamps actually generate local revenue which help keep commercial activity going in areas where there is economic unrest have depressive influences--and this is the part where folks seem to misapprehend that welfare is NOT just for the folks who receive it but, KEEPS landlords paid, utility companies paid, groceries and other commercial concerns paid even in times of economic turmoil--Democrats are willing to bend on this, to KEEP folks from going hog wild with more regressive, drastic cuts to appease a bloodthirsty base that neither cares for nor particularly wants to understand the economics of the situation, which will affect folks even more--and not just the folks ON these programs.
 
2013-12-10 11:25:42 AM
Uh, "energy subsidy" does not equal "food stamps"
 
2013-12-10 11:28:20 AM
Ok, whomever wrote that article seems to not be able to effectively communicate in any way, shape, or form. For instance, this sentence took me about ten times to parse before I finally figured out what they were saying:
According to a source tracking the farm bill talks, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that raising the minimum energy subsidy states would be required to make to $20 would be enough to disincentivize states from utilizing the loophole, potentially saving the government $8 billion over 10 years.

But, I decided to go ahead and do some research. Google "LIHEAP Loophole" and you'll see multiple REPUBLICAN sites/peopls talking about closing this. This is not a new thing, it goes back a few years. The CBO discussed it back in 2012 (page 8), but they only projected $4.5B in savings. They updated it in 2013, and you know what they found? From the report on title IV for the Senate Bill (page 3):
"Accordingly, CBO now believes that states would have more flexibility under the proposal than was assumed for the previous estimate. Thus, CBO now expects that this provision, as drafted, would result in little to no reduction in the cost of nutrition programs" (emphasis mine)
And for the House version (page 4):
"Thus, CBO now expects that this provision, as drafted in the legislation, would result in little to no reduction in the cost of nutrition programs."

So yeah, the republicans can take this talking point and shove it.
 
2013-12-10 11:31:00 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Uh, "energy subsidy" does not equal "food stamps"


You don't understand what's happening here, do you?
 
2013-12-10 11:33:24 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Uh, "energy subsidy" does not equal "food stamps"


It sort of does.

See, under the current set of the way things go, if you qualify for energy subsidies, you automatically qualify for increased SNAP assistance. So some states mail small checks to individuals that are currently on SNAP. The amount is a few dollars. By doing this, the states pay very little, but the federal government then pays those houses more in SNAP assistance. So the states help their own people out by spending very little.

But, the CBO found that eliminating this loophole will result in "little to no reduction in the cost of nutrition programs". Anything that talks about $8-10B in savings is about 9 months out of date. They are referencing the original CBO estimate, as opposed to the revised estimate. Granted, that was based all on a $10 minimum that was in a different proposal. I can't find anything for the current set of proposals. What the $10 minimum means, is that states would have to send $10 to a person before they could qualify for increased SNAP assistance. The thinking is that states won't want to do this, and therefore SNAP will have to pay out less.
 
2013-12-10 11:35:48 AM
This is why you can't compromise. If you do, they just start pointing at you and going "SEE!?!?! YOU'RE JUST AS SH*TTY AND CRAZY AS WE ARE, BECAUSE YOU DID SOME OF THE SH*TTY, CRAZY THINGS WE WANTED! NOW SHARE MY POOP PIE! IT HAS NUTS!"
 
2013-12-10 11:37:02 AM
Good, screw the lazy moochers.
 
2013-12-10 11:39:47 AM

Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Good, screw the lazy moochers.


You can't just break out the new RNC motto this far before elections, you dolt! You'll ruin the surprise.
 
2013-12-10 11:43:41 AM
I'd like to giver her a shiner and him a niels to the groin.

/ got nothin, but your blog sucks
 
2013-12-10 11:43:45 AM
I went looking at the article for more details on when and how Democrats cut Food Stamps, and found...

... a Republican plan to cut food stamps that they hope the Democrats might be willing to go along with.

/color me shocked.
 
2013-12-10 11:44:14 AM
Let's pretend this is legitimate.

How can Democrats cut food stamps without drawing the ire of everyone?

Well, they're not oppressive Republican terrorists, so that's a good start.
 
2013-12-10 11:44:48 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: The point is, there are a lot of food insecure people in the U.S., many of whom occupy the painful threshold between making slightly too much to qualify for benefits but not enough to get ahead.


Then change the threshold so they qualify without the shenanigans. I'd be perfectly fine with that, too, because like you I don't consider such spending to really be wasteful.
=Smidge=
 
2013-12-10 11:47:43 AM

Smidge204: UrukHaiGuyz: The point is, there are a lot of food insecure people in the U.S., many of whom occupy the painful threshold between making slightly too much to qualify for benefits but not enough to get ahead.

Then change the threshold so they qualify without the shenanigans. I'd be perfectly fine with that, too, because like you I don't consider such spending to really be wasteful.
=Smidge=


What are the odds of that happening when one party is actively pushing hard for entitlement cuts? You've got a nice idea in theory, but real people are going hungry in the meantime.
 
2013-12-10 11:48:06 AM

NeverDrunk23: Bareefer Obonghit: Even if you did believe your lie that this was 'Democrats cutting food stamps' your argument is, "See, they hate poor people like we do!"

You'll notice that most of the right's criticisms of democrats boils down to 'See, they're as bad as us!'


You are overlooking the wide swath of criticisms that boil to one of the following:
- 'I don't want to support lazy brown people!'
- 'That's not what it says in the Bible!'
- 'I don't like liberals so I refuse believe anything they say'
 
2013-12-10 11:48:13 AM

vpb: finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.

That's called compromise.  They must not realize that it's gone out of style.



It's only compromise if the Democrats are getting something of equal value.  Otherwise it's just called "getting slightly less raped."
 
2013-12-10 11:49:51 AM

BladBoy: "We welcome this approach to reign in spending and are glad that the Democratic party agrees with us."


I would hope they would welcome the approach to rein in spending instead, which would tend to indicate slowing it down. "Reigning in spending" would, if anything, tend to imply ruling through largess.
 
2013-12-10 11:50:14 AM

Emposter: vpb: finding savings by eliminating a loophole is more politically palatable for them than the deeper cuts proposed by the House.

That's called compromise.  They must not realize that it's gone out of style.


It's only compromise if the Democrats are getting something of equal value.  Otherwise it's just called "getting slightly less raped."


Just the tip?
 
2013-12-10 11:50:48 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: Mathematics of Wonton Burrito Meals: Good, screw the lazy moochers.

You can't just break out the new RNC motto this far before elections, you dolt! You'll ruin the surprise.


Besides, "The GOP: Government small enough to fit in your vagina" was a much better motto.

/has more vagina in it.
 
2013-12-10 11:56:07 AM

UrukHaiGuyz: What are the odds of that happening when one party is actively pushing hard for entitlement cuts? You've got a nice idea in theory, but real people are going hungry in the meantime.


I'm with Smidge.  Republicans being dicks and this isn't going to change.  Make them own their proposed cuts and let the Dems be the ones seen as trying to reform the system.  Democrats should be trying to help increase SNAP.  It's just good policy.
 
Displayed 50 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report