Greatest Country In The World Votes To Cut Food Stamps To Poor

The Rich aren't taxed high enough, corporations get too many breaks, we spend too much money on our military, we spend too much money "nation building", we have abandoned blue collar manufacturing, we continue to import both legally and illegally hundreds of thousands of immigrants every year, not to mention the trillions being hidden offshore by the 1%.

And we wonder why the middle class is suffering.

 

Er, no, I have been saying the same thing all along. For some odd reason you are not understanding what I am saying. It's rather simple. I will simply copy and paste. Read it slowly if you must. Perhaps if I italicize it you might understand it better?

While of course not indicative of the entire SNAP population, those problems are widespread and they do cost quite a bit of money every year.

Why yes, yes I do. I quoted the article on page 4 but neglected to provide the link, my bad.

The House has voted to cut nearly $4 billion a year from food stamps, a 5 percent reduction to the nation's main feeding program used by more than 1 in 7 Americans.

The 217-210 vote was a win for conservatives after Democrats united in opposition and some GOP moderates said the cut was too high.

The bill's savings would be achieved by allowing states to put broad new work requirements in place for many food stamp recipients and to test applicants for drugs. The bill also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults without dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57603776/house-votes-to-cut-$4-billion-a-year-from-food-stamps/

The CBO also said that Obamacare would cost under $1 trillion before the law was passed. Their estimates are sometimes a bit off. But even if they're in the ballpark on this one, a reduction from 48 million to roughly 44 million does not seem out of the realm of plausibility if the majority of those cut are people who shouldn't be receiving benefits in the first place. And of course, with Glorious Leader in charge the economy moves ever forward, right?

As they always do.

As they always do.

It's generally only heard when Republicans are in office. Curiously, outside of the Occupy camps we haven;t heard too much of this over the past 5 years. At least not from liberals.

LOL, are you freaking serious? This is only the case because the deficit jumped to over $1.4 trillion. Before Obama showed up the highest deficit in the history of the nation stood at a bit over $420 billion or thereabouts. Obama spiked that by a trillion dollars his first year. Since then, deficits have been falling, but we are still over a trillion a year. That is absolutely unsustainable.

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Look at those inflation-adjusted figures. No one else has ever come close to what Obama has done.

If you are going to try and argue that our budget situation under Obama is even remotely in decent shape, then this is going to get nasty. Bush was bad, but the current occupant of the WH is so much worse than any other POTUS where spending is concerned... I am just flabbergasted that anyone would try and spin this as a virtue.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57400369-503544/national-debt-has-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

And before you try and claim that the deficits were the result of Bush's policies as Obama has tried to do, observe the Four Pinnochios the WaPo gave him for that assertion:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamas-claim-that-90-percent-of-the-current-deficit-is-due-to-bush-policies/2012/09/26/e9bfbcd0-077e-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Absurd. Really man, don't go there.

And what metric do we use there? When unemployment reaches below 7%? 6%? When growth maintains a steady 2.5% or so pace? Dude, we're not going to get there within the next two years. Maybe if the WH would end its permitorium on offshore drilling and drilling on federal land, call the dogs off on fracking, stop blocking Keystone, stop trying to raise taxes, stop trying to ram job-killing Obamacare down everyone's throat... But it's not happening. There's a class war to win.

So your real answer is: never.

 

Yeah, like how you accused me of wanting you dead, then several people basically told you that you were wildly off-base and absolutely wrong, and you never apologized to me. I could have done this then, but didn't feel like it. Here are some comments I made about you in 2005, I think, and right now, you don't look like you deserved the effort on my part.

This is in reply to a post by Sam Fisher. First I quote you, then I repost a quote I wrote back to you. The rest you can figure out, if your brain is still functioning:

Originally Posted by treeman:

My reply:

Originally Posted by Deckard:

(same post... it's about a post basso made, and I'm including a comment I posted between the quote from you, and the quote from me about basso)

And my reply to the very much missed treeman... (that's a quote, treeman.)

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2071730&highlight=treeman

This is another quote from me about you:

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=2529049&highlight=treeman#post2529049

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=6933290&highlight=treeman


There are more of those kinds of posts from me where I wonder how you are doing and/or say something nice about you. Clearly, I was talking about a different treeman than the person who is posting today.

You owe me an apology, you jerk. Oh, and I wrote something at the bottom of every post of mine back then. I'll use it again here.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Do you see anything wrong with this?

 

I see plenty wrong with you, and plenty wrong with someone saying that I wish them dead, when the truth was the opposite. And I don't recall you coming forward and telling treeman that he had it wrong. Why not? Yes, there is plenty wrong.

Keep D&D Civil.

 

You cannot go around insulting people and then try to take a position of being an advocate of civility in the D&D. That would be very hypocritical.

 

How can you sleep at night. You are the very image of hypocrisy here.

 

Since you can't keep things civil and since you continually are resorting to personal insults, I will choose to not further engage you here.

bye.

 

Of course you won't, because you can't. What's amusing to me is that you seem to have completely missed the sarcasm in my posting of Keep D&D Civil in my reply to treeman.

 

I already said bye and dismissed you.

bye.

 

Consider the poo flung.

 

Glad we finally have this clear.

Kicking off people with drug problems could possibly, maybe be seen as addressing "abuse or fraud," but I don't really see the other new restrictions that way. Thanks for the source, though.

I think we disagree on whether the people about to be kicked off by the new law are people who should be kicked off, but let's leave that aside for now. I'm not sure if the CBO figures include the across-the-board, $5 billion annual cuts already scheduled for November, but I would guess so. So I wouldn't assume that those 3.8 million are the same people who fall into the categories targeted by the new legislation.

You can speak for yourself and I'll have to take your word for it, but I've heard a ton of this rhetoric from all over the left, and it's hard to imagine anyone missing that if they've remotely been paying attention.

Thanks for your substantive response here. It's true that Obama overstated it when he blamed Bush for 90% of that deficit. But it's true that Bush had at least an equal part with Obama in creating that huge 2009 deficit. This is from that same Washington Post article you cited:

By those numbers, Bush contributed a bit more to that 2009 deficit than Obama did. As Obama's presidency goes on, his policies naturally account for more and more of the budget, but any new spending he's introduced has not been enough to reverse the decline in budget deficits that he's presided over.

We don't have that much further to go to get to 6% or 7% unemployment: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/UNRATE/

The economy is in a slow recovery. I would argue that it's been much slower than it could have been, had the fiscal stimulus been larger and much more quickly spent, and had the House GOP not spent the past 2+ years creating investment-killing uncertainty with its hostage-taking approach to the debt ceiling. It seems to me that there's still a shortfall of demand in the economy (note how low inflation remains, despite years of extraordinarily accommodative Fed policy), yet the economy continues to recover slowly, and this may speed up a great deal if Congress can come to its senses even slightly.

As for taxes, Obama's overseen hundreds of billions in tax cuts. Those cuts were in both the 2009 Recovery Act and the 2010 tax act, and they've been a huge cause of the deficits that Republicans rail against (with an impressive lack of any sense of irony).

And let's not be like the media and forget that Republicans forced the increase in the payroll tax this past January. I'm always amused when I see conservatives try to find a justification for supporting that increase. Somehow they never apply the same logic to taxes that affect the wealthy. But by all means, let's pretend that class warfare is only waged from the bottom up.

 

Why did you take that tag line out.

I give you credit for taking the high road. The problem I see with D&D is that you have two groups of people.

1. You got the libs who take themselves too seriously.

2. Right-wing conservative posters here are so out there that you can't tell if they are being serious or just getting a rise out of sensitive over-serious libs

Problem is that these crazies were antagonized during the Bush years (like basso and bigtexxx) and now they are trying to return the favor by putting libs on the defensive and boil their blood. Those two don't think a whole lot, as shown by their inability to engage in any kind of constructive debate. They only reply with one liners that are meant to allow them to escape a losing situation. Basso goes silent, but bigtexxx more often claims victory first and that his opponent isn't fit for debate so he has some sort of moral high ground. It's somewhat comical and sad.

Then you got folks like Treeman and giddyup, whom seem more well meaning but let's face it, live in a warped reality. No offense intended and I am sure they will react pretty hostile to me for writing that...but wow how twisted is their logic?

Finally, you have the intelligent ones. They bring up some legit points. Like the fact that welfare and 30k might, and I say might, be better combo than just making $60k. I looked that up and it is a possibility, and no one has put any evidence to the contrary. So it should be accepted as at least a hypothesis, but a lot of libs do jump on that and assume its false. It might very well be, but shouldn't it be considered a bit?

Anyway, I hate to see you lose your poise around these guys. They aren't worth it. Don't waste your time digging through their old posts to uncover their b.s. Just remember they aren't here to debate or discuss, rather they are here to preach and needle.

 

man why do you guys waste so much time posting about **** thats just going to be trolled by bigtexxx.

 

Oh, well if you dismissed him... LOL

You post as though you have some kind of authority. Hilarious.

 

I had to type every one of those, and I probably did that at least a thousand times. It became tiring.

High road? I don't know about that. Also, I think there's a strong temptation among people here to analyze things to death, regardless of the topic. Then there are people who rarely post anything of substance and are basically trolling. They know who they are.

They have strong opinions. The treeman who used to post here about a decade ago was quite different from the treeman who posts today. I'm sure he's keenly aware of that. Giddy? I like giddyup. I just don't like to debate him here in D&D. It's exasperating for me. I always read his posts in other forums. He's a good guy.

I haven't lost my "poise," Sweet Lou 4 2. It genuinely angered me that treeman made such an incredibly insulting remark right after he started posting here again. I finally got around to calling him out on it, that's all. And with all due respect, I don't need your advice on how to post here.

 

Yes there is fraud rampant all over the place. No question about it. But regardless, they have a point with the welfare cliff. I don't think that point should be delegitimized because it's hypocritical.

 

Ok, no problem man. Just trying to be helpful.