General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHow did today's Food Stamp Cut become law?
Was this part of some deal?
elleng
(131,107 posts)discussed on All In with Chris Hayes just now.
alc
(1,151 posts)Part of the 2009 recovery act was to increase benefits temporarily and that is expiring.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3899
One of the reasons some governors (mostly R) refused some recovery money was because they knew they'd be accused of cutting programs when the federal money expired. (not food stamps, but other programs)
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)which democrats voted for this. They will not get my vote.
badtoworse
(5,957 posts)That was the deal. Nobody cut anything.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)badtoworse
(5,957 posts)The bill was passed with a definite sunset date on which funding returns to the baseline level. Had the baseline been reduced, I'd agreee it was a cut. In this case, the commitment to provide increased funding was not open-ended - it had an end date and it has been reached.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)then they need to increase funding for education and increase wages, so that people won't need the food stamps. Until then they should not be cutting food stamps.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)And, EVERYONE on them now depends on them. Every dollar worth. To them and in reality, it is a cut.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)PlanetaryOrbit
(155 posts)A cut means an actual reduction. Say a government agency has a budget of $10 billion a year. If you reduce that to $8 billion a year, then you've cut its budget.
If, however, you temporarily raise it to $13 billion a year, and then, after a few years, revert back to the original $10 billion budget, that's not exactly a cut, that's simply the expiration of a temporary raise.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the same thing as cutting it. You can try to spin it all you want but those who depend on it know better.
PlanetaryOrbit
(155 posts)Let's say some conservative administration cut welfare spending from, say, $50 billion to $40 billion.
Then, years later, some liberal administration restored the welfare to its pre-cut levels, back to $50 billion.
What would you think of some conservative pundit who criticizes the liberals for their "$10 billion increase in welfare spending?"
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)With corporate talking points!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)The 1% are the only ones who are out of the recession. The middle class and the poor are still in recession.
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)Help for the rest...?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Just like the ranks of the corporate talking point posters at DU!
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)I remember reading protests over it then, but the counter was that this would never happen, except of course it did.
More stuff here:
http://www.dpc.senate.gov/dpcdoc.cfm?doc_name=lb-111-2-134