
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
Or add related content to this report
News Stories | Blogs | Images | Videos | Comments
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.
Rated up/shared.
I'm waiting.....
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.