As Americans gather around their tables this coming
Thanksgiving, they'll think about the fiscally responsible House Republicans who sent a message to those "takers" who depend on the SNAP program for putting food on their Thanksgiving tables.
Message to all those "takers" from the GOP:
"STUFF IT!
Especially YOU veterans! You know, the heroes we fetishize when that sort of adulation and "respect" suits us politically!"
In addition to reducing housing aid, and denying health care to vets, the GOP is also trying to remove thousands of vets from the food stamp program, known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.
At least 900,000 veterans rely on SNAP. The House Republican version of the farm bill, the five-year piece of legislation that funds nutrition and agriculture provisions, would slash funding for the food stamps program by nearly $40 billion and boot 2.8 million people off the program next year.
That includes 170,000 veterans, who would be removed through a provision in the bill that would eliminate food stamps eligibility for non-elderly jobless adults who can't find work or an opening in a job training program. ---Mother Jones
Commenters come to this blog almost daily to remind me that Mr. Obama got re-elected last year only because he promised people "free stuff." These are the same folks who have nothing to say about this shameful legislation by the GOP that took that "free stuff" from the poor and hungry. Because: OBAMA!
As the chest-thumping patriots, who love our veterans to pieces, gather around their blessedly food-laden tables this Thursday, they'll say a special prayer to God, thanking him (or her) for the bounty they will devour, and swat away that annoying thought about the "free stuff" folks, who'll just have to make do with less. After all, keeping them on handouts and commie welfare only makes them more lazy than they already are. Amen.
Kevin W. Concannon, Under secretary for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services, lays out the facts on the SNAP program:
SNAP recipients come from all walks of life. Ninety-one percent of SNAP recipients live in households with children, an elderly family member, a disabled person who cannot work, or adults who are working. SNAP serves 900,000 veterans each month.
SNAP recipients are poor. The vast majority of SNAP recipients have incomes far below the Federal poverty level. For a family of four, that's just a little over $23,000 per year. Last year, the extra support provided by SNAP prevented 4.7 million Americans, including 2.1 million children, from slipping back into poverty as they worked to get back on their feet.
SNAP recipients play by the rules. Over 99 percent of those receiving SNAP benefits are eligible. Over the last 15 years, USDA has reduced fraud in SNAP from 4 percent to around 1 percent.
SNAP recipients are working. In households where at least one adult is able to work, more than 80 percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. --Daily Kos
27 comments:
What seems to be valid is that the more the government (the tax paying people) subsidizes an activity the more of that activity we can observe.
Apparently great minds are in short supply because rather than accepting we will forever have a certain percentage of the population in need of assistance and then adopting policies that work to minimize the need for public assistence we gravitate to both extremes. Depending of course on our political/social philosophy.
Answers to these social issues are not easily found as there are so many budgetary and tax issues to be considered. As well as economic issues affecting the people and the nation.
We cannot turn our backs on our veterans and it is our obligation to support their efforts to find gainful employment and if neccessary retraining. For those vets who where disabled either physically or mentally then as a nation we must support them for as long as is neccessary.
My problem after 45 years of working, providing for myself and famiy as it grew to adulthood are those healthy strong 20 and 30 something who take advantage of the system and work hard at finding reasons why they can't work.
Imagine the impact when the next wave of baby boomers retire. That and the likelyhood we'll never see a 4% or lower unemployment rate again.
It seems to me (and maybe others) we have a problem in this nation with establishing reasoned priorities.
I'm just wondering when corporations. busonesses, and the people will begin to understand rational self interest. I'm beginning to think not n my lifetime for certain.
Here are my struggles... the money pot is not unlimited. Much as us liberals would like it not to be so, at some point we are going to have to cut spending.
The left is as unwilling to cut social programs as the right is unwilling to cut military spending.
To continue to expect those with means to continue to support the economy, without spending cuts, is not a strategy for a long term stability.
Sadly, in a world where slowing spending growth from 4% to 2% is seen as a cut in spending, as opposed to a cut in the rate of increase of spending, the politics of all this messes things up.
I am almost to the point of asking the left to show me some specific cuts before they get more revenue and asking the right to show me specific revenue enhancements before they get more cuts.
We are better than this... I hope...
Dave, Mr. Obama offered the GOP a 10 to 1 deal. 10 budget cuts to one revenue increase, and they said no.
It is difficult to do anything when all the opposition does is say NO!
Here are some details of those proposed cuts:
The proposal included $1.661 billion in discretionary cuts, $341 billion in health care (Medicare and Medicaid) cuts, $215 billion in other mandatory spending cuts, $995 billion in new revenues, $673 billion in interest savings, and $238 billion in Social Security cuts between 2012 and 2020.
Why did it fail? Paul Ryan opposed the deal (and worked behind-the-scenes to get an even more radical proposal to block-grant Medicaid) and combined with the force of the Norquist no-tax pledge, the proposal was DOA. The vote was 11-7 in favor of the plan (short of the 14-vote threshold necessary to move forward to Congress). All three Republican representatives on the commission (Paul Ryan, David Camp, and Jeb Hensarling) voted “no.” Later, in a move so cynical it baffled the imagination, Ryan accused Obama of causing the plan to fail.
How does a president deal with that sort of dishonesty?
what RN said... "We cannot turn our backs on our veterans"
...rather a side bar... there have been a tremendous amount of scam telemarketing focusing on helping homeless and needy vets. Most of these calls are from 'boiler-room' operators who typically turn over less than 3% of raised funds to the charity involved. Scams.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/15/charity-telemarketing-_n_4282101.html
many stories abound on the net.
PLEASE.... if you want to help a Vet,,or another good cause... find a good LOCAL charity...just saying. b good this holiday
Dave,
I agree with your assessment and as much as others blame the opposite party, cutting the budget is not spending cuts. Neither side wants to cut spending because it would cost them votes.
There are far to many people who could earn their own way but the handout system makes it easier to stay on government assistance.
RN, The lower the participation rate, the lower the unemployment rate so below 6% is feasible.
Well said Dave.
I look at the situation from a perspective of one who has come to accept that both sides love to spend, neither side wanto cut ACTUAL spending, one side refuses to raise marginal tax rates, the other keeps increasing social outlays, the neo cons see the MIC and defense as untouchable, ect.
I know I'm rambling but IMO neither party is serious in anyway about returning the nation to fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets. They are IMNHO serious about kicking the can further down the road.
I hold Congress responsible, which is to say holding the American electorate responsible. The president does not hold the purse strings.
Ms Shaw,
Even JFK knew to raise revenue you lower taxes. He was a democrat back in the day but not a Progressive (whatever they are).
Consider that the "rich" pay 39% federal while the 47% pay nothing. Who do you believe take more from the government?
How about The Fair Tax as an equalizer. What happened to tax reform, from either party. Eliminate all individual deductions and lower the rate. That would punish the rich by eliminating deductions like mortgage interest and charities and assist the less fortunate.
I know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. But I've got another one:
Definition of insanity:
Voluntarily going to a liberal blog you don't like, reading it, and then reporting and bitching about it on a conservative blog.
Wait. That's not just another definition of insanity it's also a definition of stupidity.
"By conveniently pointing to places where tax cuts were enacted at or around the time of a recovery or boom, tax cut advocates argue that tax cuts increase revenue. The problem with this is that the revenue increases following the Bush and Reagan tax cuts are dwarfed by the revenue increase following Bill Clinton’s tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, post-Reagan & Bush tax cut revenue falls below the 1965-2005 average. In other words, revenue increased because the economy was recovering/growing, and the tax cuts have little (probably nothing) to do with growth in GDP. if anything, these tax cuts actually lowered revenue increased from what they would have been otherwise. So the real question to ask is this: how much revenue did these tax cuts cost us?"
SOURCE
@RN __ What seems to be valid is that the more the government (the tax paying people) subsidizes an activity the more of that activity we can observe.
----
Sorry RN, that's utter nonsense.
What we have is a new corporate model that is incredibly clever in shifting costs onto the public sector.
You know, profits for the Walton girls and expenses for the public.
So the free market(LMAO) depresses wages to the extent that the government must step in to avoid complete privation.
Of course the noise machine also complains about the HUGE corporate tax rate when in fact they pay little and are subsidized.
The noise machine also does an excellent job of painting a picture of "those strapping bucks with food stamps buying a T-Bone"(Reagan) or the old "welfare Cadillac" meme (St. Ronnie Raygun again).
It's fixable and NO Dave, I am NOT willing to cut social programs so long as this model of Kapitalism is in place.
I am not behind cutting anything so long as we have the right wing rabies noise machine (Louis Gohmert) pumping out stories that his constituents are sick of standing behind welfare recipients buying shrimp and lobster his constituents can't afford.
Utter crap and I'm tired of so called liberals taking a dive and falling for the nonsense.
What you fail to understand RN is that corporations have learned all to well how to operate in THEIR self interest and they've packed all branches of government and have the kapital to get it done.
skud: He [JFK] was a democrat back in the day but not a Progressive (whatever they are).
For your elucidation:
"Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the Idea of Progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition.
Progressivism became highly significant during the Age of Enlightenment in Europe out of the belief that Europe was demonstrating that societies could progress in civility from barbaric conditions to civilization through strengthening the basis of empirical knowledge as the foundation of society.
Figures of the Enlightenment believed that progress had universal application to all societies and that these ideas would spread from Europe to across the world.
Sociologist Robert Nisbet finds that "No single idea has been more important than...the Idea of Progress in Western civilization for three thousand years." and defines five "crucial premises" of Idea of Progress as being: value of the past, nobility of Western civilization, worth of economic/technological growth, faith in reason and scientific/scholarly knowledge obtained through reason, intrinsic importance and worth of life on earth."
By that definition, our country was surely founded on progressive ideals.
The more conservative colonists backed the old monarchists.
JFK in "Profiles in Courage:"
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.' "
So am I.
Tax cuts make sense when entering a recessionary cycle based on the reasoning it stimulates economic activity and promotes economic growth. Usually it is accompanied by deficit spending.
It seems quite logical that when the economy rebounds and is again robust raising taxes to pre recession levels to pay down the debt incurred during deficit spending is reasonable.
But then again I'm not an economist or tax accountant or tax attorney.
The Catholic Pope on "takers:"
"Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the 'exploited' but the outcast, the 'leftovers'.
The pope also denounced "trickle-down" theories of economics promoted by many conservatives and politicians who espouse an unregulated free market.
"In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world," he said. "This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."
Thank you for that Shaw. It is perhaps the best, most concise description of the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment, Classical Liberalusm, and the Founding Father's principles I have heard.
Unfortunately while progress is essential not all avenues pursued by todays modern progressives have yield positive results. Progress is, and will always remain a work in, well, progress.
Sometimes, when you reach success it is best to stop. It seems that quite often too much of a good thing turns out poorly.
RN: "It seems quite logical that when the economy rebounds and is again robust raising taxes to pre recession levels to pay down the debt incurred during deficit spending is reasonable."
This is the conventional wisdom, and it still applies. What makes this recession and these budget shortfalls different is the legacy of the Bush/Cheney administration which will haunt us for a generation.
It should also be pointed out that marginal tax rates for the highest income earners are at the lowest point in history, resulting in the widest income-inequality gap in history. GOP resistance to raising revenue from the folks who can afford it accounts for the impasse we face today.
The last reported waste/fraud number for the SNAP (food stamp) program was 1.5% of the total cost of the program. I wish every government program had such a low ratio.
At present, about 15% of Americans are on the SNAP program. That high number reflects the depression our economy has been in since the economy crashed during the Bush presidency. Many more Americans who qualify, have not taken advantage of their benefits.
We keep extending these programs, yet, we keep cutting taxes. We keep growing our military expenses, yet, we keep cutting taxes.
Our tax rate now, is lower than it has been since before 1930. Our highest tax level is under 40%. It used to be almost twice that, when our expenses were less than half of our current expenses.
Those suicidal economic policies, were Republican policies. Since RR the Republican chant has been, no new taxes, cut taxes. If we had taken a sane economic policy, like pay as we go, we would have no debt.
It is not a both sides do it problem. It is a one sided ideological problem caused by one sides false/failed economic ideology.
For following those suicidal economic policies, we are trillions in debt, with no economic policy to get out of t5hat hole.
Obama has cut the budget deficit, cut the number of government workers and cut our military financial output, yet we still run a yearly deficit.
Why give up on Democratic programs which have proven to work, because we made the mistake of following idiotic Republican fiscal policies?
This is NOT a both sides do it problem. It is a Republican problem.
If we cannot admit honestly what is causing the problem, we cannot fix the problem.
@ ducky... Nonsense perhaps to you.
Oh, and FYI your perception I fail to understand is BS.
This is a disgrace:
"About 900,000 veterans and 5,000 active duty troops face cuts in their food stamp benefits beginning Thursday as $5 billion is automatically trimmed from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program for low-income families.
“The coming benefit cut will reduce SNAP benefits, which are already modest, for all households by 7 percent on average, or about $10 per person per month,” according to an analysis by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities."
"What makes this recession and these budget shortfalls different is the legacy of the Bush/Cheney"
Keep this under you leg but they have not been in office for Five years. It took Reagan less than a year to turn the disaster he inherited around. That is the difference between inspiring and blaming.
We do need meaningful tax reform starting with the Fair Tax where we punish the successful because and take deductions away. The marginal tax rates for the "rich" would increase because they can't shelter money to avoid paying taxes.
What a silly person you are, skud. To compare what Obama inherited, a financial disaster which was the WORST since the Great Depression, to what Reagan had to deal with shows you're not a serious persona at all, but merely a partisan troll who comes here to taunt and show how far up the GOP's, uh, oh whatever. Why waste my time.
Blind partisanship is something to behold isn't it Shaw?
Post a Comment