Republicans in House of Reps vote to cut food stamps

[Moonlight Graham]

You've got to be mother freaking kidding me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24170617

The Republican-led House of Representatives passed the bill by 217-200. But it has little chance in the Democratic-held Senate.

The bill would save $39bn over a decade, but affect four million people on the programme. It comes a day after census data showed 15% of Americans live in poverty. An estimated one in seven Americans - most of them children, elderly or disabled - receive food stamps.

...

The bill aims to cut $4bn a year, representing about 5% of the current programme.

...

According to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), the food programme bill has tripled since 2004 and cost about $78bn last year.

...

On Wednesday, the White House threatened to veto the legislation, claiming the "cuts would affect a broad array of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet, including working families with children, senior citizens, veterans, and adults who are still looking for work".

The Congressional Budget Office says that if the bill were enacted, up to 3.8 million people could lose their benefits next year

...

Every Democrat voting on Thursday opposed the bill. Fifteen Republicans voted against the measure.

The food program has tripled in cost since 2004 mostly due to the recent economic crisis forcing people to turn to the program for assistance. 47 million Americans are now on food stamps.

On the other hand, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have now cost every American household the equivalent of $75,000 dollars. In total, that’s roughly $6 trillion dollars. But of course we won't see Republicans touch defense spending in any significant way. In terms of deficit cutting, the ability to wage war (including 700+ military bases on foreign soil) is obviously more important to maintain than the ability of the poorest Americans to obtain food. Take that impoverished Obamacare users!

[eyeball]

You've got to be mother freaking kidding me.

Ever feel like you're trapped in the movie Brazil or maybe 200 Motels?

[Shady]

You've got to be mother freaking kidding me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24170617

The food program has tripled in cost since 2004 mostly due to the recent economic crisis forcing people to turn to the program for assistance. 47 million Americans are now on food stamps.

On the other hand, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have now cost every American household the equivalent of $75,000 dollars. In total, that’s roughly $6 trillion dollars. But of course we won't see Republicans touch defense spending in any significant way. In terms of deficit cutting, the ability to wage war (including 700+ military bases on foreign soil) is obviously more important to maintain than the ability of the poorest Americans to obtain food. Take that impoverished Obamacare users!

You don't know what you're talking about. Republicans did address defense spending. That's what the whole sequestration was about. And everyone complained. They also agree to raise taxes on the top income bracket. And now, agreeing with a 57% increase in food stamp spending instead of the proposed 62% spending increase by the Democrats, is classified as a cut in food stamps? FU.

[GostHacked]

More Americans on food stamps than there are Canadians.

[Guest American Woman]

More Americans on food stamps than there are Canadians.

More Americans live in California than there are Canadians.

[GostHacked]

More Americans live in California than there are Canadians.

Hey thanks Captain Obvious.

[Guest American Woman]

Hey thanks Captain Obvious.

In light of your totally and completely irrelevant post, I wasn't sure it was obvious to you.

[Moonlight Graham]

You don't know what you're talking about. Republicans did address defense spending. That's what the whole sequestration was about. And everyone complained. They also agree to raise taxes on the top income bracket. FU.

Yay the Republicans were very excited about defense spending cuts and tax increases:

As part of John Boehner's "plan B" approach to avoiding the fiscal cliff (embarked upon after initial talks with the White House broke down), the House on Dec. 20, 2012, passed the Spending Reduction Act of 2012. The plan would have replaced the 2013 defense sequester with a variety of spending cuts, including cuts to food stamps, the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank (including eliminating the "orderly liquidation authority" at the center of the legislation). It would have reduced the size of the domestic sequester in proportion to the $19 billion in discretionary savings included in the bill.

Republicans have conceded that they won't be able to pass the bill again, even in the House, but it provides a model for what Republicans want in a temporary replacement: no tax increases, no defense cuts and considerable domestic spending reductions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

FU.

Wow.

[Topaz]

I understand why...15-16 trillion debt BUT cut food stamps, people then will be forced to steal, which will increase policing, more people going to jail, just when some states jails are so full they have to let people out! let's start with cutting pay cheques to Congress and the Senate.

[sharkman]

You don't know what you're talking about. Republicans did address defense spending. That's what the whole sequestration was about. And everyone complained. They also agree to raise taxes on the top income bracket. And now, agreeing with a 57% increase in food stamp spending instead of the proposed 62% spending increase by the Democrats, is classified as a cut in food stamps? FU.

It's this disconnect in objective analysis and unwillingness to compromise just even a little that reveals all one needs to know about Obama's administration. The government can't feed every mouth. It can't give every single person a job. It can't give every single person healthcare. Obama's biggest failure turns out to be he's out of touch with reality as he spends 85 billion per month on the economy alone to keep it from collapsing.

[sharkman]

I understand why...15-16 trillion debt BUT cut food stamps, people then will be forced to steal, which will increase policing, more people going to jail, just when some states jails are so full they have to let people out! let's start with cutting pay cheques to Congress and the Senate.

LOOK. It's not cutting food stamps Topaz. It's increasing them by 57%!!!

[Moonlight Graham]

It's this disconnect in objective analysis and unwillingness to compromise just even a little that reveals all one needs to know about Obama's administration. The government can't feed every mouth. It can't give every single person a job. It can't give every single person healthcare. Obama's biggest failure turns out to be he's out of touch with reality as he spends 85 billion per month on the economy alone to keep it from collapsing.

If you were Obama, what would you do?

It can't give every single person healthcare.

Yes, actually it can, and they'd actually save money. The US government spends almost twice as much on healthcare per capita as Canada and many other OECD countries and is getting worse results.

[Argus]

You don't know what you're talking about. Republicans did address defense spending. That's what the whole sequestration was about. And everyone complained. They also agree to raise taxes on the top income bracket.

They did nothing of the sort. They ahve gone to the mat to protect the wealthy (their main constituents) from tax increases. The sequestration was about being unable to pass any kind of bill because the Republicans refused to compromise on anything, thus the automatic spending cuts kicked in. Now the Republicans are trying to reverse them on the backs of the poor.

And now, agreeing with a 57% increase in food stamp spending instead of the proposed 62% spending increase by the Democrats, is classified as a cut in food stamps? FU.

If you need $100 to pay for food then you need $100 to pay for food. Taking money back from it in order to restore defense spending cuts made becaue you were protecting the rich from tax increases can hardly be seen as anything but immoral.