Skip to main content

View Diary: Cut in Food Stamps Targets Benefits Paid in Northeast, West Coast + Mich, Mont, Wisc & DC (79 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A bipartisan conference? (17+ / 0-)

    Were the Democratic members all out for a beer together when this passed?  

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:06:22 AM PST

    •  This is a real interesting one. Stabenow has been (17+ / 0-)

      on this since 2012.

      She spoke about it during debate in the Senate a year and a half ago.

      The mass media seems like it wants to keep the details on the down low so I got curious. The cut is going to affect people almost exclusively in the blue states.

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Tue Jan 28, 2014 at 10:11:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You could not have said it any better! (3+ / 0-)

        You are so correct regarding the Blue States. Republicans appear to want impoverished children and their families to continue to go hungry.

        How can these people live with themselves? They have great Healthcare, a fancy Gym, private offices and their enormous salaries that WE gave them and they basically ignore impoverished constituents.

        Perhaps they need a refresher course on what 'Poverty' is!

    •  Umm... (0+ / 0-)

      The Republicans voted to cut food stamps by 40 billion over ten years.  The Democrats voted to cut food stamps by only 4 billion by closing this loophole.  

      The compromise was much closer to what the Dems wanted, that is 8 billion.  And work requirements and drug testing (wanted by the Republicans) are out.

      This is actually a victory for the Democrats.  If this didn't get hammered out this year, what would have happened to the people getting food stamps if the Repubs take over the Senate in the fall?  And don't think it can't happen.

      As Robert Greenstein, writing for the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, says:

      "Here’s the bottom line:
      The proposed conference agreement drops the draconian House provisions, and its one SNAP cut curbs a dubious practice that SNAP’s congressional champions didn’t envision or intend.  There’s no denying that the 4 percent of beneficiaries who would be affected are low-income people who would face a significant benefit reduction.  But congressional rejection of the agreement because of this provision would risk future harm to far larger numbers of low-income people who rely on SNAP.

      Defeating the agreement almost certainly would merely postpone the tightening of the SUA provision; now that the loophole has come to light, it won’t withstand public scrutiny, and it will be closed sooner or later anyway, with its closing widely viewed as a reasonable reform.  Meanwhile, congressional rejection of the proposed conference agreement would likely push the farm bill and SNAP reauthorization into the next Congress — thereby rolling the dice for the more than 45 million people who constitute the other 96 percent of SNAP recipients."

      •  This is only a victory.. (7+ / 0-)

        ...if you believe that just giving Republicans the most they could possibly get  is successful negotiating.  We should literally not be cutting a single dollar from SNAP, nor making people choose between heating their homes and eating.  It was grotesque that the Senate made their first offer with cuts, because the House offer was never going to be passed regardless.  A lot of people who work in Washington or the media write about these cuts, and they have to paint it as an acceptable decision.  By saying: "If we didn't cut huge numbers from the program now, it would lead to other cuts in some theoretical future," they've apparently gotten people on their side who will argue that point - but make no mistake, this is not a win for anyone but Republicans, in any ACTUAL MEANINGFUL way.  Rhetoric can make anything sound agreeable.

        •  Exactly! Beating the Traitor Right Until they (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          whimper "Please don't hurt me any more", THEN kicking them to drive the lesson home that THIS is what happens when you disrespect the Left for Over Thirty Years, is the ONLY "compromise" they understand - or DESERVE!

      •  The so-called loophole (0+ / 0-)

        is about people who don't DIRECTLY pay for their heating getting a few dollars credit toward home heating costs.  Well, guess what? The vast majority of those people DO pay for heat. It's just included in their rent payments, instead of going on a separate bill. Does Congress think the landlords are paying to heat the building out of their own pockets?! If so, they've obviously never met a landlord!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site