House Republicans target food stamps in Farm Bill budget cuts
Linkedin

House Republicans target food stamps in Farm Bill budget cuts

Washington : DC : USA | Jul 14, 2012 at 8:12 PM PDT
XX XX
Views: Pending
 
Rachel Maddow Expose GOP - Tax cuts On Wealthy and Corps / Tax Increase On Poor And Middle Class

House Republicans showed their true colors this week with the Farm Bill, as they took out their proverbial axes and prepared to starve as many low-income people as they could with one massive blow.

What are the Republicans going to do for an encore, kick old ladies down a flight of stairs?

“The House bill passed the committee with strong bipartisan support but exposed a division in the Republican ranks over the size of cuts to the food stamp program, which has long been a target of conservatives,” according to the New York Times. “Much of the savings in the House farm bill comes from cutting food stamps.”

The obvious moral question here is why are Republicans so obsessed with cutting food assistance programs for the poor? And what exactly do they have against food for children?

The $16.5 billion in cuts to food stamps that Republicans want would cause 3 million people to lose their benefits. Furthermore, 300,000 children would no longer be eligible for free school lunches.

The standard Republican line is a sales pitch for deficit reduction that completely ignores the fact that there are human beings on the receiving end of their feed-the-rich, starve-the-poor agenda.

Republicans call food stamps a government handout. But they call corporate welfare incentive for "job creators" who have yet to create jobs, despite more than a decade of massive tax breaks.

Most Americans agree that government spending has to be brought under control. But there is vast difference between how Democrats and Republicans want to achieve that goal.

For Republicans, the mere thought of reverse Robin Hood economics leaves them foaming at the mouth for more. Back in May, House Republicans took no shame in their heartless and insensitive anti-poor agenda.

“House Republicans pushed ahead…with plans to protect increased defense spending without raising taxes, largely by cutting more from domestic programs, including aid to the poor,” according to Politico.

Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney stands squarely behind the party line.

In February, after embarrassing himself by saying he was “not concerned about the very poor,” Mitt Romney explained that the government’s safety net would take care of them, and he promised to repair any holes in the net. That promise didn’t last very long. On Thursday, House Republicans approved, on a party-line vote, a disastrous new budget that would leave millions of struggling families desperate for food, shelter and health care — and Mr. Romney has embraced it,” the New York Times reported.

It’s one thing to promote fiscal responsibility, it’s another to shamelessly punish the single group of people with the fewest lobbyists to speak up for them.

In a schoolyard fight, we would call the Republicans bullies. They beat up the poor like a bully picks on the short third-grader with glasses, who eats an apple in the lunch room instead of greasy French fries like everyone else.

If American voters are smart, they will kick the Republican bullies out. If they don’t, when the party of the rich is done with the poor, they will come after the middle class and turn them into the poor, because bullies are always looking for someone weaker than them to beat up.

Video: Rachel Maddow Expose GOP - Tax cuts On Wealthy and Corps / Tax Increase On Poor And Middle Class

If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.

You may also like:

2012 Presidential election may be decided by Obama, Romney debates

Florida animal shelter kills dog 15 minutes after arrival

2012 MacBook Pro redesign may mark the end of the entire MacBook Pro line

Back
1 of 6
Next
What are the Republicans going to do for an encore, kick old ladies down a flight of stairs?
itobin53 is based in Tampa, Florida, United States of America, and is an Anchor for Allvoices.
Report Credibility
 
  • Clear
  • Share:
  • Share
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
  • Clear
 
 
Advertisement
 
Posted By DavaCastillo Dava Castillo | 10 months ago
Thanks for the report itobin.

Someone has to advocate for the poor, and the Democrats are the ones who need to step forward and show their courage to stand by the convictions of the Democratic Party that has supported middle class values and the poor.
Posted By itobin53 itobin53 | 10 months ago
And what does it say about the people (GOP) that have so little conscience and morality that they think its OK to starve people on purpose for their insane hypocritical ideology.
Posted By northsunm32 northsunm32 | 10 months ago
I guess you could say that the Republican position is that there is no free lunch :)
Posted By StephEaly Stephanie Ealy | 10 months ago
Let me guess...you aren't Republican? LOL! Great writing Maryann, but agree to disagree.
Posted By herbinchi Herbert Dyer, Jr. | 10 months ago
Great piece. Fits right in with Gingrich's description of Obama as the "food stamps' president and Romney's recent post-NAACP comments about "free stuff." Stay tuned.

Rated up/shared.
Posted By ttrapani ttrapani | 10 months ago
Thank you for this piece. The systematic destruction of welfare programs in this country since the end of AFDC is horrific. We need more advocacy and truth-telling on the subject.
Posted By itobin53 itobin53 | 10 months ago
Which conservative wants to tell me why food for poor people is bad and subsidizing oil companies with $$$ billions is good?

I'm waiting.....
Posted By EarlRichards EarlRichards | 10 months ago
Big Oil, Wall Street and the GOP are a bunch of moral-bankrupt jerks.
Posted By Keevin Keevin | 10 months ago
The republinos are pure hypocrites who don't want Americans to become dependent upon government while they provide themselves a lifetime of financial security dependent upon the government.
Posted By JonathanSwaringen JonathanSwaringen | 10 months ago
It would be nice if they would stop stealing my money to give to someone I don't even know. Give me my own money and I'll choose who to give it to that's my right.

Its my money not theirs they didn't work for it they just stole it. Why do democrats think its ok to steal from me to give to the poor. That is exactly what all government welfare is. Stealing from one to give to another. Its a good thing to help people but taking from one person without their consent to give to someone else is theft plain and simple. If you want to call it justified theft go ahead.

Get the government out of the wealth transfer business cut some useless job killing regulation and people will have their own money that they might just give to charity on their own or not as is their right with their since it belongs to them.

The government is extremely inefficient and wasteful if the people had more of their own money they could be investing it and getting a much larger return on their investment and would have more to give. People would be helped. I don't know why democrats just assume without government stealing from one to give to another tons would sit out there starving.

I'll agree with you Republicans are hypocrites they generally have their own pet projects and things they want to overspend on and this should stop too. We need to end farm subsidies, bring the troops home, cut corporate welfare as well. Get back to the constitution. The government should only be defending us with an army possibly running the post office....they should probably go ahead and get rid of that too though they run it horribly and someone else could do a better job.

Anyway....the government needs to get back to its constitutional duties and stop trying to do everything it has no right to under its own governing law.
Reply By itobin53 itobin53 | 10 months ago
So according to JonathanSwaringen - it's OK to "steal" taxpayer money to give it to the rich - but not to the poor. Hum....
Reply By canucanoe2 canucanoe2 | 10 months ago
@Jonathan
"I don't know why democrats just assume without government stealing from one to give to another tons would sit out there starving."

Well, there is something called historical precedent. At the turn of the 20th century things were pretty much as you would like them to be. There was no regulation on business and industry and the poor people suffered as a result. Do you think dirty coal burning factories were built next to the palatial homes of the rich or next to sub-standard housing for the poor? Who were the unlucky ones that got to breath in all of the soot and fumes? It was, of course, the poor. And who suffered the most when we were going through the perpetual boom/bust cycles prior to the establishment of financial regs that succeeded the 1929 market crash? The poor, because when there is no work, there is no money, and when there is no money, there is no food or shelter. There weren't enough charities to feed and house all these suffering people so people STARVED, or DIED OF EXPOSURE.

That is why democrats just assume without government stealing from one to give to another tons would sit out there starving. BECAUSE IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED!

You are just another heartless republican when your priority is to give money to the oil industry that is enjoying record profits year after year rather than help to feed people who suffer from maladies attributable to poor nutrition.
Posted By Keevin Keevin | 10 months ago
Everyone assumes the US needs to make budget cuts. Why? The republinos say so. The financial problems would be solved by having full employment with liveable wages and equitable taxes on all. (And this includes getting people out of poverty by working at a job!) Increases in revenues would more than cover increases in expenditures with the exceptions of healthcare and medicare and these could be dealt with by having proper regulations with proper regulation enforcement eliminating fraud and waste.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
regardless of one's POV on this matter, this is a horribly-written article ("... kick old ladies down the stairs"). It is a great "editorial" expressing an opinion - even though it is rife with misinformation. To present it as "news" crosses the line of credibilty.

Liberals have done a masterful job of painting repubs as evil, and since they control most of the press, the message is hard to counter. Conservatives as am I (and not all Repubs are conservatives) - want nothing better than full employment for all regardless of race, social status, etc. I want no one to go hungry, etc.

But the policies of the left have gotten us to this point and have built a dependency class who get "just enough" to get by, and then are fear-mongered to by the left telling them that the "rich white republican devil" behind that tree over there is trying to take it all away.

Yet these same (mainly white) liberals are the biggest racists. In their deep, dark hearts, they truly believe that an entire portion of the black community are not capable, and too stupid to make it without their help. THAT, my friends, is truly racist.

Note the recent ads that encourage food stamp recipients to use the stamps to throw a party! Note the widespread fraud and abuse. Note that schools actually receive more fed funding if the percentage of kids in school are on the free lunch program - including breakfast, lunch and now dinner - so they pad their headcount by putting kids in the program who really don't need it.

I want my tax dollars used wisely and not wasted. Worse even than that, these programs enable bad behavior, poor diet choices and continue to deepen dependence on gov't. We need to create jobs, thus creating taxpayers - and Obama's policies for the past 3 years have done just the opposite through massive regulation, tax policies that prevent job creation, and blocking of energy development. Get those things changed, and we won't be having this food stamp discussion.

Socialism is great, but eventually we will run out of other people's money.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@itobin - your reply about 4 hours ago to pollard. You just continue to spout the liberal line. The minimum wage has a purpose, to fill low skilled jobs at wages employers can affort, which also provides work for students who need the income, and second income households. The minimum wage is not meant to be a life-long career pay amount, it is a starting point for new workers.

IF we raise the minimum wage to a "living wage" as you call it (oh, yes, please give me a number, just what hourly rate would be your minimum? It is easy to use squishy words like "fairness" and "living wage" but I'm asking for a specific amount - what is it?), it will CUT the number of employed people. If someone is worth $8.00/hr now, raising the minimum to $15 or $20/hr, these people will be unemployed, because the work is only worth $8/hr. But you don't see how economics work - you only see what you "feel" should happen.

and to answer your other question, what is the solution?- from this conservative Christian who actually cares for people and hates to see them kept down by the shackles of the gov't poverty system - the solution is two-fold - get gov't to change regulations to be pro-business which will increase business, increase the taxes they pay from the higher income they generate, and will create more jobs for those poor who you pretend to want to help (although, by doing this it will have to mean those evil companies will be making proooofits and getting riiiiicher - ooh!). Second, help people get off of welfare by reforming the programs so they aren't penalized dollar for dollar they earn as they climb out of the hole.
Posted By TreyMcNabb TreyMcNabb | 10 months ago
It is an undisputable fact that the number of people have skyrocketed during Obama's presidency. Perhaps that money could be better spent on job training or other programs that could help people find jobs to pay for their own food instead of getting people addicted to government handouts.

On the other hand, Republicans do want to erase the deficit on the backs of the poor and the elderly. They oppose repealing the Bush tax cuts which caused the deficit in the first place. Finally, both Republcans and Democrats support corporate welfare, especially in their own districts/states.

We need compassion and common sense. I see a lot of compassion but very little common sense from the Democrats. I don't see either on the part of the Republicans.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@Trey - you are wrong about the Bush tax cuts causing the deficit. Reinstating them will result in a total increase in tax receipts that equals 8.5 days of federal spending. hardly the cause of the deficit. So that is not the problem.

The problem is that gov't spending is waaaay out of control, both parties buy votes and take care of their friends with our tax money, regulations that hurt business and job growth (including extra taxes on the "wealthy" that make over $250K per year, of which population includes most small business in this country who provide jobs), blocking energy production which drives up the cost of everything (because energy is in most things, including trucking goods to market) which GREATLY hurt the poor with higher prices for necessities - all of these things. Then combine it with a greatly growing dependency class that one day will be the majority - a very dangerous position for the continued existence of our republic. It is a recipe for disaster.

I am not aware of anyone dying in the streets here from lack of food, even going back 40 years, so that is a canard. But when the gov't finally runs out of money and people really do start starving - THEN we have a problem.

I like your party-line phraseology - Republicans want to erase the deficit "on the backs of the poor". Just where do you get this tripe? We're also the party that wants dirty air and dirty water, if I understand the media correctly. Do liberal really believe this?

I find it interesting that Obama admitted he wanted to "spread the wealth around". The only problem with this is while he DOES take taxes from those who earn (the "rich"), it never shows up in the pockets of the poor. Have you heard from any poor person that they actually got "Obama money"? So, he's not spreading anything but manure. The taxes go to boondoggles such as Solyndra and other black holes he's dumped our money in to.
Reply By TreyMcNabb TreyMcNabb | 10 months ago
I am not trying to toe any party line. The Bush tax cuts did lead to a return to deficit spending. I would repeal all of the Bush tax cuts and the Obama tax cuts that were part of his Stimulus package. I would also institute a special temporary tax on consumption to pay for the Wars on Terror, the first wars in American history to not be paid for with a tax increase.

Spending also has to be addressed. Medicare and Social Security are bankrupting America. These middle class entitltements must be means-tested. Welfare programs must be for the very poor and must be temporary, not ways' of life.

Finally, as symbolic gestures, the politicians in Washington need to take cuts in benefits and pay. They live the high life in our nation's capital, off the public dole while getting wined and dined by lobbyist. Speaking of lobbyist, Congressmen, Senators, Judges, their spouses, and Cabinet-level officials should be forever banned from working as lobbyists. And all the above officials must abide by all the laws they pass on to the rest of us, including Medicare and Social Security which they are currently exempted from.

Satisfied? I would cut spending on popular programs, raise taxes on more than just the rich (no class warfare here), and would make political life less oppulent for the political class.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@Trey. I like how you phrased it - "The Bush tax cuts did lead to a return to deficit spending." One has nothing to do with the other. The increase in spending was far greater than the reduction in tax income. There has been no reconciliation between what we take in and what we spend for decades.

Taxes affect tax revenues in the inverse, as demonstrated by the Laffer curve - and by historic precedence, such as the Reagan tax cuts. Tax rates went down, people began to engage in tax producing income efforts and total tax collections went up. The problem was the democrat controlled congress increased spending 2 for 1 so we actually had a deficit even though revenues were up. (Yes, Reagan did sign too, so he bears some responsbility).

I know that punishing the rich for being successful (and I'm not rich by the definition, so this is not me crying) is all in vogue today. Just tell me the last time you got a job from a poor man.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@Trey - one more on your last post. I am TIRED of being told that Medicare and SS are "entitlements" for the middle class. I've been paying about 15% of my income (7.65 from me and the same match from my employer, which is considered part of my wage cost that could be mine if not paid by my employer in taxes). I have personally paid more than $400K into my SS fund over the past 30 years. Compounded at normal rates (had I been able to invest it in moderate risk investments), this would be more than $1M. More than enough to take care of me in old age. I PAID FOR THIS - it is not an entitlement. Just as I pay a monthly Medicare tax - I am owed the policy benefits when I reach retirement age. IT IS NOT AN ENTITLEMENT.

It is as if the life insurance policy I've been paying on for years tells my wife after I die - "sorry, you are already rich, so you can't have this money."

Entitlements (and I love that word) are misnamed anyway. What that is saying is "if you are poor for whatever reason, then you are 'entitled' to gov't support". I am all for providing a helping hand to all that need it while the get back on their feet, but I am totally against an entitlement mentality that is the basic enabler of a total underclass of people in our society who believe that this is how life is lived. And who has set this all up - primarily the democrats.
Reply By TreyMcNabb TreyMcNabb | 10 months ago
Entitlements are not welfare. You seem to be confusing the two. I congratulate you on your hard work. It is a shame those in Washington of both parties are wasting your tax dollars.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@Trey - one final comment - you and I most definitely agree that Congress should be forced to abide by any law they pass for us. They must use PPACA (Obamacare) and not their rich and protected lifetime health plan. They must participate in SS and Medicare and not their rich retirment packages. Any laws they pass must equally apply to them as to the citizens.

Interesting that my liberal friends (yes, I do have some)have no problem with - as they say - "those running things having better benefits than the rest of us" - which goes against everything that I thought liberals stood for - equality of results regardless of position or effort in life. But I guess the "rulers" are more equal than the rest of us.

Altho I've challenged some of your writing here, I don't they you and I are that far apart and if we share a meal sometime, we may find a lot of common ground.
Reply By canucanoe2 canucanoe2 | 10 months ago
dwellons
"Interesting that my liberal friends (yes, I do have some)have no problem with - as they say - "those running things having better benefits than the rest of us" - which goes against everything that I thought liberals stood for - equality of results regardless of position or effort in life. But I guess the "rulers" are more equal than the rest of us."

I have NEVER heard of or met a liberal that has that view about government benefits. Your disingenuous attempt to cast your Orwellian aspersions on liberals as being too like Napoleon of Animal Farm fame is pathetic.
Reply By TreyMcNabb TreyMcNabb | 10 months ago
I enjoyed our exchange. If I drank beer, which I don't, you seem to be the kind of person with whom I would enjoy having a cold one or two.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
@canucanoe. I'm not making this up. A very wealthy guy who I worked for who got rich by building and then sellin his company stated exactly that sentiment to me. Liberals accuse conservatives of trying to control everyone's lives but just look at all the regs from libs. Mike Bloomberg in NY banning salt in restaurants and large sodas as a start. Liberals believe they are smarter than the rest of us and the ONLY reason socialism has failed every time it has been tried is that it wasn't done right and if THEY ran it, it would work.
Posted By dwellons dwellons | 10 months ago
sorry @canucanoe2 - I don't make stuff up. I recently worked for a guy who built a successful company over 20 years, sold it, became a multi-millionaire, and also was extremely liberal. I had the exact discussion with him - he had no problem with the ruling class having better benefits than the rest of us when I asked him on that specific question during a discussion we were having about PPACA and I had pointed out that congress weren't required to use it for their healthcare. So I HAVE first hand experience - and he's not the only one.

Oh, and I do love that you fall back on one of the two liberal debate responses when you have no real response - personal attack on me (calling my actions "pathetic" and me "disingenuous"). Whether true or not, it doesn't address the POINT I made, so your response is to deflect the question by questioning my motive in making the point. The truth hurts, huh? (The other liberal debating trick is to use transferrence. I won't describe it here, just look it up).

It reminds me of the joke about Kruschev, the former Soviet ruler, (raised on a farm) who called his mother one day and said "Mama, you wouldn't believe the great job I have. I have a big plush office, limousines and drivers, a huge apartment with servants, and a beautiful dascha in the countryside where I go hunting most weekends." His mother replied, "Nitika, that is wonderful. What will you do when the communists take over?"

But I must say I'm impressed that whether you agree with Orwell or not, you are at least conversant with the characters in the book and their representations and what Orwell was portraying. not something I see every day.
See All Comments
Advertisement
 

News Stories

 
  • Bain Capital Could Decide Obama Vs Romney

    International Business Times
    It's not rare for the noted liberal to be critical of Romney, but Maddow's mocking made clear just how much trouble the Republican presidential candidate could be in if President Barack Obama's political team can prove its claims that Romney is lying...
  • Obama ad taxes Mitt Romney hard | Paul Harris

    The Guardian
    Video via YouTube Who So far, the 2012 US presidential race has been the "Goldilocks" election...If it is too bad, then President Barack Obama looks like toast and Mitt Romney can start measuring the drapes in the Oval Office. But if the recovery...
  • Obama warns donors he will be ‘outspent' by Romney campaign

    The Hill
    I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far, Obama wrote. I'm talking about the Romney campaign and the Republicans themselves. Those outside groups just add even...
  • Romney will create 65,000 jobs in the Netherlands: Obama team

    Dutch News
    The list is based on an analysis of Romney's plans to boost the economy by giving tax breaks to multinationals. This will lead to the creation of jobs abroad, the Obama team says. Economic relationship Last November, a Dutch government report said...
  • Obama to tout auto bailout, tax policies in Ohio

    Virginian-Pilot Online
    President Barack Obama is preparing to tell Ohio voters that Republican Mitt Romney's tax proposals would spur job growth in foreign countries including China. The president also plans Monday to highlight his administration's 2009 bailout of the auto...
  • Character assassination on the campaign trail

    Japan Times
    Obama casts Romney as a wealthy, greedy, coldhearted investor who put profits over people and who "outsourced" jobs. Romney's Obama is a power-hungry interventionist whose meddling policies alienate business, slow the recovery and threaten Americans'...

Images

 >
 

More From Allvoices

Related People

Report Your News Got a similar story?
Add it to the network!

Or add related content to this report

 
Tap_logo_330_110_event
 


Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy.

© Allvoices, Inc 2008-2013. All rights reserved.