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.

(The Raw Story)   According to Fox News' Stuart Varney, the point of food stamp cuts isn't to save federal money... it's to punish poor people   (rawstory.com) divider line 57
    More: Asinine, Stuart Varney, SNAP, Fox News, poor people, Brian Kilmeade  
•       •       •

2586 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Mar 2014 at 3:39 PM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-03-11 04:16:47 PM
7 votes:

Cat Food Sandwiches: Confabulat: We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.

I'm sure you've seen the numbers comparing Republicans' charitable contributions versus Democrats.  Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


This argument is total garbage. Why? Because, for one thing, ensuring that people eat, are sheltered, educated and housed ought to be the goal and practice of a modern, successful society. It ought not to be charity. The world and its resources belong to the people who were born here. It's not like they can go anywhere else. All government is is (at its best) is an expression of what we all in common want to accomplish. In this case, people should be fed because they are our people and not because they are charity cases. Also, in case you haven't heard, charities aren't doing particularly well lately, either. They can't keep up with the demand for what they provide. That means your glorious conservative donors alone can't manage it. If we the people can choose in common to bomb the shiat out of strangers, we the people can in common choose to feed our citizens.
2014-03-11 02:48:39 PM
6 votes:
"You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.
2014-03-11 02:42:31 PM
6 votes:
what a vindictive little prick.
2014-03-11 03:55:21 PM
5 votes:
Food stamps are as much of a handout to grocery stores, farmers, and big food companies like Nestle as they are handouts to poor people
2014-03-11 03:51:12 PM
5 votes:

Cat Food Sandwiches: Because you have a different idea on how to help poor people doesn't mean you hate them.


That is utter bullshiat. I've listened to enough Republicans talk. They DESPISE poor people and always blame them for being poor. Every time.

Republicans WANT poor people to suffer. They believe they deserve it. They say as much out loud all the time.
2014-03-11 03:43:39 PM
5 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.


I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.
2014-03-11 02:55:54 PM
5 votes:
"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"
 

$800M/year is .1% of the annual military budget. But I'm sure there's no fat there to trim.
2014-03-11 03:50:25 PM
4 votes:
You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?


How about not building 500 biilion dollar planes that don't work and not building tanks just to sit in a desert to die? Can we start there?
2014-03-11 03:48:44 PM
4 votes:
76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

Why would you want to get rid of this program, Stu?
2014-03-11 03:43:51 PM
4 votes:
No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.
2014-03-11 05:18:26 PM
3 votes:
Can we please all just acknowledge that the far right's true platform is feudalism? It's not even a joke anymore.
2014-03-11 04:09:13 PM
3 votes:
I would love to see Stuart Varney lose his life savings through a Bernie Madoff style Ponzi scheme, need the social safety net, but not qualify due to some cuts he endorsed/promoted which wound up becoming law.
2014-03-11 03:51:22 PM
3 votes:

Karac: "You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve.

Yes, you are being demagogued. Because, yes, you are taking the food out of the mouths of children. Did you not catch Rand Paul's CPAC speech?


Or that other pantywaist pussified commie who never met a conflict he couldn't cut and run from:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

// yup, still Rand Paul
2014-03-11 03:41:27 PM
3 votes:

kronicfeld: $800M/year is .1% of the annual military budget. But I'm sure there's no fat there to trim.


The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically. If something bad does happen, you're tarred and feathered because "HE DIDN'T KEEP US SAFE"

Rather than cut the costs, let's start defraying them by billing others for military services rendered.

"Hey, ExxonMobil.. that's a nice little straight you've got over there. It costs $1million/day to keep our carrier group there... It would be a shame if they left and something bad happened"
2014-03-11 03:36:53 PM
3 votes:
We get it, Republicans hate poor people and wish they would die or just go away somehow. We know.
2014-03-11 03:10:19 PM
3 votes:
How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"


Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:

www.independent.co.uk
2014-03-11 03:00:57 PM
3 votes:

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?

I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.

However:

Marcus Aurelius: Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.

This is still a valid statement.


Sorry for ranting.  I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.  How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me.  All the 24x7 channels are bad, but FOX is positively toxic.
2014-03-11 02:47:46 PM
3 votes:
I guess they can drop that fake moniker of "Compassionate Conservative" now, right? (or have they dropped it years ago when the blah guy first came into office?)
2014-03-11 07:32:28 PM
2 votes:
The US sends $3.1 BILLION dollars in military aid to Israel every year, and this guy tells us we can't reduce the deficit unless we cut 0.8 BILLION in food stamps from our yearly budget.

Let's start the cuts with Israel and other foreign countries, shall we?
2014-03-11 05:33:06 PM
2 votes:

UndeadPoetsSociety: WHAT THE LIVING fark ARE YOU JACKASSES SO farkING TERRIFIED OF, AND WHY?


I've been wondering this about America's conservatives for a long time.

I think the short answer is: The future.
2014-03-11 04:20:53 PM
2 votes:
You do get demagogued, because you really are cutting off your nose to spite your face, all to score some political points with your ever shrinking base.

There is no cycle of food stamp dependence.

And Wal-Mart blamed lowered earnings on those very food stamp cuts.

We can help people off of food stamps by ensuring they actually have an economy that pays them a fair wage.

All the money all trickles up anyways, but on its way back up, generates a lot of economic activity.
2014-03-11 04:12:45 PM
2 votes:

Nonrepeating Rotating Binary: No one is feeding people for votes, you ignorant arrogant little asshat.

We're feeding people because they're human, they're hungry, and it is the right thing to do.

/an idea totally lost on you, I know.


This is the same guy who told off Pope Francis that he was ignorant of how unfettered capitalism was good for the soul and is what Jesus would have supported, and suggested that Francis crossed a line by trying to use religious faith to argue political points.

Based on his personal moral compass people like you who would be aligned with Satan to Varney.
2014-03-11 04:06:22 PM
2 votes:

Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."


This quote should be tatooed on every politician and posted every five feet in all government buildings.
2014-03-11 04:04:34 PM
2 votes:

Bith Set Me Up: Here's another Eisenhower quote:

[izquotes.com image 850x400]

If it hadn't been for the 1953 Coup of Iran, I'd put him in my top 10 US presidents.


The only problem with that is that Republicans see poor people getting food as a 'privilege' and not feeding them as a 'principle.
2014-03-11 04:02:13 PM
2 votes:
Is the Obvious tag away at a job fair, where he'll pass out 30 resumes and not get a call back from any of our holy job creatures, despite being well-qualified for the positions available, followed up by a night and a morning drinking cheap whisky in a bar in order to summon the courage to tell his wife that in order to feed their children they're going to have to default on their mortgage and lose everything they've worked hard to get, lost when his company outsourced his job to India, and demonized by politicans for being lazy, despite the fact that he's been applying to 30+ jobs every week for the past 70 weeks while working part time as a server at the local Applebee's?
2014-03-11 03:54:15 PM
2 votes:

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


Because we're dealing with these kinds of people:

2.bp.blogspot.com
2014-03-11 03:53:06 PM
2 votes:

qorkfiend: I find the parallels between Republican social policy and torture very interesting, especially that both are predicated on the use of enforced pain or suffering in order to alter behavior.


Authoritarians only understand coercion as a motivator. Hence "taxes: legal theft" and the idea that rapists are compelled to rape by the coercive sluttiness of women in short skirts.
2014-03-11 03:52:51 PM
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve. You are bad because you're cutting. You can't win! How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?  Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.


"you can't ever win!"

Uhhh, well I guess that depends on exactly what game you were playing in the first place,  though I'm really not sure I want to know the rules of the one that has "More poor people starving to death" as a victory condition
2014-03-11 03:49:51 PM
2 votes:

Slaves2Darkness: "How will we ever get a handle on our debt if you can't cut $8 billion out of food stamps over a 10-year period? How will you ever do that?"

Getting a handle on our debt is easy ... raise taxes until there is no more deficit and then just hold spending at that level until the debt is serviced. Unfortunately the right wing religious anti-tax nut jobs fight tooth and nail to prevent such an occurrence.


I especially enjoy the implicit assertion that we cannot get a handle on the debt unless we let poor people go hungry.
2014-03-11 03:48:10 PM
2 votes:

what_now: Well, you pedantic little prick, we could start with the USS Gerald Ford, which is ESTIMATED to cost $17.5 billion dollars and is a first of it's kind super carrier.

But we need that, right? Because of this guy:


Thing is, maybe we do need that thing, maybe we don't, but Congress spends buttloads of money on stuff THE MILITARY ITSELF SAYS THEY DON'T NEED.  Apparently we can't even cut the stuff that the military doesn't even want.
2014-03-11 03:47:50 PM
2 votes:
Little Billy, just remember that when your stomach hurts tonight because we don't have enough food, Stuart Varney really has it worse because you're demagoguing him to exasperation.
2014-03-11 03:46:09 PM
2 votes:
"It shows you, once you've got a program, you can never get rid of it and it's very difficult to cut.

Actually, it's very easy.  You just cut funding to it, which is not what was done here.  Here, they merely raised the states' copays to $20, which several states thought was a worthwhile expenditure to keep their citizenry from starvation.

do you want to be the party that goes up to the poor and says, 'Take that back'?" Kilmeade said.

Apparently, you do.

"You are demagogued to death!" Varney cried. "You are told that you are taking food out of the mouths of children. You're making people starve.

Yes, you are being demagogued.  Because, yes, you are taking the food out of the mouths of children.  Did you not catch Rand Paul's CPAC speech?

Face it Fox.  Republicans looked at this change and thought it was worth it.  Democrats (and probably a few state-level Republicans) looked at this change and thought spending the extra $20 to get more than that back as assistance to their citizens was worth it.  If you have a problem with what you did, then maybe you shouldn't have done it.
2014-03-11 03:45:10 PM
2 votes:
I find the parallels between Republican social policy and torture very interesting, especially that both are predicated on the use of enforced pain or suffering in order to alter behavior.
2014-03-11 03:01:08 PM
2 votes:
I propose a truce in the Class War. Quit trying to take that slice of bread out of that kid's mouth, and we'll quit calling bankers "farking bankers".
2014-03-11 02:57:59 PM
2 votes:
Who would Jesus starve?
2014-03-11 02:56:15 PM
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: How is cutting $8 billion going to help the deficit when defense spending is over $700 billion a year?


I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.

However:

Marcus Aurelius: Cut 2% from the military and you're way past $8 billion, you worthless piece of stinking garbage.


This is still a valid statement.
2014-03-12 08:41:54 AM
1 votes:
Conservatives keep celebrating punishment as a means to motivate people.  Even after multiple psychological studies show it is the worst way to motivate people.   They are projecting their S&M fantasy on the rest of us.
2014-03-12 03:25:38 AM
1 votes:

CigaretteSmokingMan: If we are looking to defend our country the military is way too big. If we are looking to run a world empire it is way too small.


If you're looking to perpetuate an informal hegemonic or hyperpower status, it's in the right ballpark.
2014-03-12 12:31:39 AM
1 votes:
Stuart Varney, the man that was responsible for creating this meme:

img.fark.net

Him, Neil Cavuto and Larry Kudlow all try to compete to see who is the biggest suck-up to Wall Street.
2014-03-12 12:24:48 AM
1 votes:

nubzers: I know, and it irritates me. It's objectively worse in terms of performance and more expensive. Yet every time they talk about cutting the budget it's one side screaming about making us weaker and the other side wanting to cut benefits to the people in uniform or going after new weapons/equipment programs and saying "why do we need this, what are you scared of hurrdurr". It's infuriating that we can't have an honest open discussion about what we need to do.


No, we need to go after both. The Army has told Congress to stop buying tanks. What's in the budget? $3 billion for tanks.

Much better example: the F-35. What possible advantage does it offer compared to the Eurofighter Typhoon or renewing the F-16 and F-18 contracts when it comes to CAS or Air Superiority against tin-pot dictators and terror training compounds? We have no threat to our national defense that possesses fifth-generation combat aircraft. Russia? For all Putin's saber-rattling, the Soviet Union is gone, and Russia's growing business interests do not favor war. China? Zero socioeconomic possibility of war for at least a generation. Their economy would collapse in six months without the west as a trade partner. North Korea, Syria, Libya, or anyone else? A generation or two behind in technology, almost a century behind in military training.
2014-03-11 07:49:51 PM
1 votes:

Slackfumasta: The US sends $3.1 BILLION dollars in military aid to Israel every year, and this guy tells us we can't reduce the deficit unless we cut 0.8 BILLION in food stamps from our yearly budget.
Let's start the cuts with Israel and other foreign countries, shall we?


No. Let's do the following before we cut a single item from the budget.

1. Raise minimum wage to $15/hr
2. Tax capital gains over $250k at income rates.
3. Remove the FICA cap.
4. Levy a Contingency Military Operations tax upon all earnings over $250k, automatically implemented when DFAS reports that at least 5,000 servicemembers received at least 30 days of Imminent Danger Pay.

There is nothing, and I mean nothing, that would have a more immediate impact upon the budget deficit. Higher wages will shoot the stock market through the roof - the gross increase in their investment earnings will take most of the bite out of the increased tax rate. And then, when all those one percenters see that every bullet and bean used in a combat zone has a personal effect on their earnings, they will drop-kick the chickenhawks off Capitol Hill at the earliest opportunity.
2014-03-11 07:42:05 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: I never liked the "because it isn't everything means it does nothing" argument. $8 billion in cuts is $8 billion removed from the deficit.


The real objection is "you can't slash taxes, spiral military spending out of control, and then cut a few pennies (relatively speaking) from food stamps, and then style yourself 'fiscally responsible.'"

Yet this has been, with inconsequential variations, the campaign argument of every Republican presidential nominee since Reagan.
2014-03-11 06:11:57 PM
1 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: Splish: We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.

I would suggest not holding up programs like SNAP as a source of pride saying we do take care of our own and then have Republicans looking for every possible means to cut them.  I would also suggest things like a minimum wage hike to $15/hour to get some of these working poor families off of SNAP.  I would rather see programs like SNAP expanded especially in rural areas rather than an increase in military spending.

It's great that we have programs like SNAP and TANF and WIC to serve as life vests for people who are drowning in a lake of poverty but it would be just super duper if we could figure out how all those people are falling into the lake in the first place.


Economists could and will argue for months about the effect of a minimum wage hike and what it would do for the (currently) working poor. But if you want to expand SNAP and TANF, you're going to have more people on them, not fewer.
2014-03-11 05:42:38 PM
1 votes:

Soup4Bonnie: Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?

That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.


We're not the wealthiest country in the world. And even if we were, that doesn't mean that every person living here is wealthy. What alternative would you suggest?

Children born in poor homes are forcibly taken and reassigned to rich homes? Poor people are prohibited from having children? Poor families with children just don't receive any assistance? Wealth redistribution to poor families without earmarking it for food?

Here's another way of looking at it: no child has starved to death in this country because their family simply couldn't afford food in decades, largely because of SNAP and food stamps and similar programs. That's something to be proud of.
2014-03-11 05:11:57 PM
1 votes:
Do Republicans really believe that charities would swoop in and save the nation's poor, if only we weren't forced to spend that money on taxes?

Of course they don't believe that; they know they'd spend that money on a new jet ski and the poor can go fark themselves.

And yes, this is what Republicans actually believe but are too scared to say out loud.
2014-03-11 04:46:08 PM
1 votes:

illogic: Dr Dreidel: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."// yup, still Rand Paul

fark that asshole.  He voted right along with the GOP to cut food stamps because he thinks millionaires are using them too much or something.  Rand may be against military spending, but he gives absolutely zero farks about the poor in this country.


You, uh...may want to look up the origins of that quote.

// hint: not RANDPAUL
2014-03-11 04:17:38 PM
1 votes:

Splish: What precisely should be upsetting about that?


That we're supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world yet 1 in 4 kids is on SNAP may not bother you, but it does me.
2014-03-11 04:07:38 PM
1 votes:
FTA: Varney agreed that Republicans were the true victims here.

Deport this c*cksucker straight to Hell.
2014-03-11 03:58:00 PM
1 votes:
Any good conservative Christian knows, Jesus said "Give a man a fish and he will be satisfied.  Kill thousands with a bombardment from a battleship and you save money giving them all those fish."
2014-03-11 03:48:14 PM
1 votes:

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Rather than cut the costs, let's start defraying them by billing others for military services rendered.

"Hey, ExxonMobil.. that's a nice little straight you've got over there. It costs $1million/day to keep our carrier group there... It would be a shame if they left and something bad happened"


Given that we can't get Exxon/Mobil to clean up their own messes, I have a feeling getting them to run their own security would be a long, hard fight indeed.
2014-03-11 03:46:11 PM
1 votes:

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


You can't fire hungry children into Baghdad and blow up a building!

...Or can you?
2014-03-11 03:44:40 PM
1 votes:

what_now: Eddie Adams from Torrance: The trouble is that cutting military budgets is dangerous politically.

I get that, but I'm appalled that "hungry children" isn't more politically dangerous.


Jesus, right? What has happened to our national moral compass?
2014-03-11 03:37:45 PM
1 votes:

nmrsnr: Marcus Aurelius: Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.

That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.


Noted.  I will restrain myself from here on out.
2014-03-11 03:20:37 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: Sorry for ranting. I am becoming highly intolerant of these people.


That's fine, but your argument was the same one that the right used to argue that $70 billion (or whatever the actual number was) in revenue from increasing taxes on those making over $250k was insignificant in light of the $700 billion deficit, so why bother? It wasn't a very good argument then, and it's still not a good argument. The good argument is: because taking food out of the mouth of children is monstrous, especially if you are doing it so that you don't have to stop building tanks and aircraft that nobody wants.
2014-03-11 03:05:29 PM
1 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: How anyone can watch this channel is way beyond me


I'll give you a hint: Arizona & Florida demographics.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-11 03:03:46 PM
1 votes:
I think we pretty much knew that.
2014-03-11 02:45:48 PM
1 votes:
Can we drop this little prick into the Atlantic and see if he'll float back home?  We don't want him any more.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report