Food Stamps Are Not Being Cut

[SunsetDreams]

They were increased in the Recovery Act TEMPORARILY. This TEMPORARY INCREASE will be allowed to expire in 2014.

Food Stamps (Offset of $11.9 Billion, Beginning March 31, 2014)

Under the bill, effective March 31, 2014, food stamp benefits will return to the levels that individuals would have received under pre-Recovery Act law. This modification is estimated to save $11.9 billion over ten years.

FY10 Ed Jobs Supplemental (HR 1586)
Provisions here: http://appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=715:2010-ed-jobs-supplemental-hr-1586&catid=27:full-committee&Itemid=134&Itemid=4

Recovery Act's Food Stamp Increase Has Boosted Economy

The Food Stamp Program has not only expanded dramatically to meet rising need during the recession, but has also delivered more than $12 billion (between April 2009 and June 2010) in additional food stamp benefits under the Recovery Act. <4> The Recovery Act provided a temporary, 13.6 percent boost in the maximum food stamp benefit in federal fiscal year 2009. Congress enacted this provision as a fast and effective economic stimulus measure to help push against the rising tide of hardship for low-income Americans.

More here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239
(Center On Budget and Policy Priorities)

GEEZ! The media need to stop lying!

[My Good Babushka]

1. That doesn't change the fact

that it's crummy to cut help to poor people. The Bush tax cuts are "temporary" too. But no one fought to extend help to low income people, like they are fighting to extend help to billionaires.

[SunsetDreams]

2. They were only temporarily increased

that's all that's being taken away, and not until 2014. If Congress finds that it needs to be extended, they have PLENTY of time to do so.

[truedelphi]

121. In general, Congress only exists to support the will of the Rich People

And the fact is, that due to the high rates of unemployment, food stamps are a necessity.

If Congress wasn't so clueless, their wold be extensions being put in place now.

Of course, jobs are a necessity also, but Congress doesn't seem too worried about creating jobs.

[babylonsister]

3. Tell it to the pukes, who couldn't conceivably vote for anything

that might help people in need.

[JoePhilly]

5. Read the OP closer ...

Foods stamps have NOT been cut. All that changed is that the date of the phase out for the TEMPORARY INCREASE has been shifted inwards to 2014. In reality, the Democrats INCREASED food stamp funding via the stimulus.

This means that, if nothing else is done, the INCREASE will expire at the end of 2014. And Food stamp funding will return to what it was prior to the temporary increase. Which again, means they have not been cut at all.

And then finally, the Dems want to extend the INCREASE at some point between now and 2014.

The OP is correct. The media is LYING. Its goal is to dishearten Democrats and get them to stay home.

And sadly, its working.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

20. Democrats need to get on TV and start shouting the truth

are they on vacation?

[Zenlitened]

41. Tsk, tsk. Raising one's voice is so... unseemly.

And anger, however justified it may be... well, it might seem rather tacky and gauche to some voters.

Voters who are... um... angry themselves.

And desperate to know that someone in DC really, truly gets it, gets why they're angry and feels mighty pissed off, too.

So, in conclusion: One must speak softly and keep one's powder dry.





:sarcasm: <-- Here it is

[Rosa Luxemburg]

42. LOL!

[JoePhilly]

68. While I kind of agree .... the reality is ...

The lie is easy to tell ... the truth is hard to explain.

The media has no time for truth that is hard to explain. It is far easier to repeat the lie.

By the time the Dem gets to the part about this being a temporary increase, the GOP hack, or Wolf Blitzer, is already interrupting.

This is why the "death panels" BS went on so long. That was easy to debunk. It took the media WEEKS to actually devote a segment to THAT ... but they devoted 100s of segments to the lie.

(edit: death panels example)

[Zenlitened]

80. But top Dems could have shot down that lie in a heartbeat... by calling it a LIE.

I can all but guarantee you that the Pres. (or Nancy Pelosi) getting on camera saying "That's a bald-faced lie"... that would get on th' tee-vee pretty damned quick.

And, if the follow-through is skillful, it would re-direct the national conversation back our direction. We'd regain control of the narrative, in other words.

But we need some plain talk, and a willingness to tap into our righteous anger.

And if we're called out for being angry... well, that's an opportunity to explain exactly WHY we're angry.

No red faces, flailing arms or flying spittle required. Just seize the momentum we'd just created, and make our case further.

I don't mean to sound flippant, or imply that it's easy, but that is basically How It's Done. Launch a few verbal grenades, if that's what it takes. Be provocative. And once you've got the microphone in hand, hang onto it.

But top Democrats, including Pres. Obama who stayed silent WAY too long while the teabaggers spouted nonsense, don't seem to want to do it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

116. Specific hit teams of key Dems need to go on TV, radio - actually everywhere

[sandnsea]

72. A year ago DU said these increases were peanuts

Stupid, useless, poopoo, no help.

So even though Democrats gave this benefit to millions of people, nobody heard anything about it until the left screamed about the so-called "cut".

:crazy:

[JoePhilly]

90. I forgot that.

[Honeycombe8]

123. So letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, as intended, is actually increasing the

taxes for them intentionally?

It's not the same thing. Either a thing is temporary or it's not. The only reason those two bills got passed is that they were written as temporary. Had it not been for that, those increases in stamps, and $, respectively, wouldn't have existed for the time they did.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Have read expiration may be accelerated to '13. Stupid when food stamps most stimulative to economy.

[JoePhilly]

6. So we should do the entire stimulus in food stamps, right?

Look ... the phase out doesn't take place for 3 years. The Dems had an immediate problem at the state level. Take action, or have teachers and firefighters lose their jobs.

The media is calling this a CUT when it is not. Their goal is to dishearten Democrats and get them to stay home in 2010.

[mopinko]

13. they also want to rile up the rabble. i was at a teabagger town hall

last week. they hissed and booed at federalizing the student loan program, and everything else that obama has done. but when the bill for the teachers came up, there were groaning because it was "being paid for on the backs of poor people". seriously. a hard core teabagger is complaining about food stamp cuts. why? because they didn't get to make them, i guess. that evil obama made them.

[flpoljunkie]

29. Of course not. It does not stimulate economy to rob Peter to pay Paul, though, does it?

I am encouraged by the Dem turnout in Colorado--60% of those who voted in the Dem primary had never voted or had voted only once. That is good news for November if the Dem GOTV operation can do this well in Colorado.

Dems and Indies do need to understand that we cannot go back to the failed Bush/GOP policies of 'Tax Cuts for the top 2%' and 'Deregulation of Wall Street.'

[JoePhilly]

43. Peter was not robbed ... that's the point ...

At worst, the TEMPORARY INCREASE that Peter now receives would end earlier, thus returning Peter to the same level of funding he was already getting pre-stimulus, and at which he was going to return anyway. Peter did not lose anything.

And let's see ... if those teachers and firefighters lose their jobs tomorrow, you see some stimulation from that??

This approach maintains the temporary food stamp funding that exists NOW ... AND keeps the job of teachers and firefighters ... NOW.

The Dems also get three years to come up with a way to extend the "temporary increase", which they want to do anyway.

[flpoljunkie]

50. Yes, some Dems have promised to fix this. I hope they are able to do so.

[SunsetDreams]

7. Somebody I see don't want the truth to get out

they are anonymous of course

[jaxx]

8. I'm glad you brought this up so that people can see the truth.

The media is getting redder by the day. And yet some people believe every bit of junk that is anti-Obama. There must be a connection there.....

[progressoid]

9. So technically, the Bush tax cuts weren't really tax cuts either.

Since they were TEMPORARY right?

[SunsetDreams]

10. That's a totally different issue. THANK goodness

they were temporary, otherwise the freaking rich would keep getting richer!

[progressoid]

11. Different issue but the same logic.

You are saying that there aren't any cuts to food stamps because they were just going to return to pre-recovery levels anyway.

Same goes for Bush's tax cuts. They were just going to return to pre-Bush levels. But try to tell someone for whom this affects that they aren't going to pay higher taxes.

Likewise, in four years tell the hungry that we didn't cut their food subsidy, we just returned it to the 2010 levels where it is supposed be. I'm sure that will be a great comfort.

[SunsetDreams]

12. Yeah 4 years, if the increase is still needed Congress has plenty of time

to change that.

[progressoid]

18. Riiiight.

Because in 4 years we can expect to have even more liberals in Congress fighting for the poor.

More likely in 4 years we'll have seen the pendulum swing back to the right and witness the GOP controlled congress pushing welfare reform part deux.

[SunsetDreams]

22. "Plenty of time"

doesn't imply that they will wait 4 years to do it.
Your "more likely in 4 years" is an assumption.
Is it possible? yes. However, we need to do our best to make sure those assholes don't get the majority back.
My pendulum will not swing to the right.

[progressoid]

31. Not unlike your assumption that "Congress has plenty of time to change it"

You admit it is a possibility that we lose control of Congress. So then your premise that this can be fixed later is false.

[SunsetDreams]

38. Anything is a possiblity, just like the recession being over by 2014

The only reason for the increase in food stamps with the stimulus bill was due to the recession.

[ProSense]

24. "Because in 4 years we can expect to have even more liberals in Congress fighting for the poor. "

Good friggin grief. Is this what you're waiting for? People shouldn't do anything, act on anything until liberals are a majority in Congress?

[progressoid]

28. Good friggin grief indeed. You said it.

No, this is NOT what I'm waiting for. We shouldn't hope it'll get fixed in the future. We should fix it properly NOW.

I'm pointing out the idiocy of assuming we will have the opportunity to fix it later. We may not.

[SunsetDreams]

30. Do you think the recession will last forever?

That is the reason there was an increase in the first place.

[progressoid]

36. This is veering from the issue.

Which to me is two fold.

1. If the food stamp increase was going to expire anyway, then there isn't any actual savings to pay for this bill. So either the administration and congress is lying about the money being saved or we are actually cutting spending on food stamps. Either scenario sucks.

2. Why couldn't we find some other subsidy to "cut" to pay for this bill?

[SunsetDreams]

37. It's not veering from the issue, the recession is the reason for the increase

[progressoid]

40. Ten points for good avoidance of my statement.

Yes, the recession is the reason for the increase. It's also the reason for the teacher jobs bill that is supposedly being paid for by this decrease in the increase of food stamps.



Which brings us back to these questions:


1. If the food stamp increase was going to expire anyway, then there isn't any actual savings to pay for this bill. So either the administration and congress is lying about the money being saved or we are actually cutting spending on food stamps. Which one is correct? Perhaps both?

2. Why couldn't we find some other subsidy to "cut" to pay for this bill? Why pick on the poor?

[SunsetDreams]

45. "Do you think the recession will last forever?"

You avoided that question, did you not?

Your question 1, you are ignoring this in the actual bill:

(Offset of $11.9 Billion, Beginning March 31, 2014)

"This modification is estimated to save $11.9 billion over ten years."

They did NOT say the savings would start immediately to pay for this bill.

It is not a "cut", if the recession had not have happened that increase may not have even been there.
We are going back to the levels pre-recovery bill. They are not picking on the poor, if the recession is over by 2014, the increase will not be needed.

[progressoid]

51. No, I don't think the recession is going to last forever.

But the poor will be the LAST to come out of it. If they ever do. Never mind that we are at a record high in FS participation. But I'm sure a family of 4 can get by just fine with a $59 cut in food assistance. Heck, food will probably be even cheaper in four years.

Regardless of how you spin it, 11.9 billion will be "saved" for those who need it most.

[SunsetDreams]

52. I'm not the one spinning anything

The media is reponsible for the spin. They are dishonest to say that the Democrats are cutting food stamps. They fail to say that the INCREASE that was applied to food stamps is going to be allowed to expire in 2014. They make it like the Democrats are cutting benefits, when those benefits were only temporary.

It's blatant dishonesty, and media spin.

If I'm correct, you think that I am on the side of taking benefits away from the poor, such as food stamps. That's absolutely not true at all, and not my point in posting this OP. They are smearing Democrats, when they don't explain that this was an Increase because of the recession, that is going to expire in 2014.

I hope this recession is over by 2014, because if it's not, then we may all be poorer than we already are. They are hoping that the recession will be over by then, which is why they gave an arbituary date in the future. They can and should re-evaluate that, if need be.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SunsetDreams]

58. "But in my opinion they deserve to be smeared"

Not hardly. They deserve to be smeared with a lie?

WOW just WOW!

I think at this point we should just agree to disagree.
You can continue believing the media spin, I do not.

[ipaint]

53. Educate yourself.

The benefit before the temporary increase had already been cut...by a democrat.


Families’ Food Stamp Benefits Purchase Less Food Each Year

Revised March 9, 2007
Related Areas of Research

* Food Assistance
o Food Stamps

Food stamp benefits average only about one dollar per person per meal (to be precise, the figure is $1.05 in 2007). In addition, as a result of benefit cuts enacted as part of the 1996 welfare law, the purchasing power of most households’ food stamp benefits is eroding in value each year.

In 2008, food stamp benefits for a typical working parent with two children will be about $37 a month lower than they would have been without the across-the-board benefit cuts included in the 1996 law. By 2017, the average benefit reduction from those provisions will reach almost $45 a month in 2008 dollars. (See figure 1.) In fact, by 2017 a typical working parent of two will, over the course of a year, miss out on more than one and a half months-worth of food stamps, compared to the amount of benefits she or he would have received under the law in place prior to 1996. Under current rules, this lost ground will never be recovered.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=152


This baloney of the elites hitting the poor and powerless and then whining that it is the only way to find the money is pathetic. We have the largest corporate welfare system in the world and yet every single time it is social programs that benefit the least among us that are slashed.

No self respecting democrat should ever cut or support cuts to food stamps. Period.

[SunsetDreams]

60. From 1996? & 2002? This is 2010, and it's still not a cut

You are going to far in trying to support your claim that they are cutting.

Who controlled Congress at that time in 1996? Never mind

[ipaint]

62. Reduction in benefits = cut. 1996, 2002, 2007, 2017. same old same old.

I don't expect folks who support this kind of nonsense to think any differently than you do. It was the administrations suggestion after all. God forbid they say hands off that money for the poor get it from say the oil corp subsidies (welfare).

The fact that past cuts in the program are squeezing poor families increasingly every year, current temporary increase or not, why of course when looking to make cuts in temporary or permanent benefits hit the poor first.
The new neo lib progressive.
Let the corp ceo's continue to roll in trillions in bailouts and snatch that $59.00 from poor families every month. And folks wonder why the poor don't dash out and vote dem every chance they get.

Clueless.

[SunsetDreams]

65. 2008 Farm Bill Increases to Food Stamp Program

Again, 1996, 2002, 2007, and definitely 2017 are irrelevant to this discussion which is about Media spin, which is a lie.
The Democrats are not doing anything with the increases that were received in 2008. They are allowing the TEMPORARY increases from the Recovery Act of 2009, which were due to the recession, to expire in 2014. It's still not 2014, yet, so we will see if they change that arbituary date.

Here is the 2008 Farm Bill. This is more current than your link which was 2007 talking about 1996, and 2002, and speculating about 2017, which is a date that was 10 years into the future. 2017 does not take into account any changes that are made in that 10 year period. For example, the 2008 Farm Bill.

Food Stamp Provisions of the Final 2008 Farm Bill


The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008,<1> otherwise known as the “Farm Bill,” includes a significant nutrition title that makes numerous improvements to the Food Stamp Program. Of the more than $10 billion over ten years in increases in domestic nutrition programs, $7.8 billion is for the Food Stamp Program (soon to be renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)).

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=310


You can continue believing the spin as well if you wish. The facts say otherwise, it is not a cut, but a rollback of an increase that was a temporary fix because of the recession. The increases from 2008 will be left alone.

[ipaint]

102. Why not make the increase permanent, since the depression for those at the bottom

isn't going to be over magically in 2014. Take the money needed from the bloated subsidies of the many corporations we all support through the welfare program we provide them with our tax dollars. What is it about hitting the poor? Do you think families are not going to need that extra $59.00 a month in 2014 after 3 and a half years of food price increases and a lingering deep recession.

Where are we going to come up with 350,000 jobs a month starting now to bring unemployment down, end the recession and the increased need for food stamps by 2014? Anyone?

According to your link the increase in food stamps is 7.8 billion divided by 10 years but in 2014 a much needed increase in food stamps will die and hit the program with a 12 billion decrease, in one year. Pardon me if I don't get the pom poms out.
Do democrats who support this kind of draconian cut think the poor put upon millionaire ceo's risk going hungry if we take the 12 billion from their government handouts?

That increase should be open ended. The job situation isn't supposed to improve for a decade. The fact that democrats look to food stamps first for dollars is pathetic. They know full well we are in a permanent ratcheting back of the economy, there is no going back to the craziness of the mid 2000's. We will need this food stamp increase for the foreseeable future and if cutting the meager food budget of the poor during an economic downturn is all the democrats can come up with to balance expenditures, given the massive inequity between rich and poor in this country, then all the middle class folks with jobs better hold on tight. Your social security is next.

[SunsetDreams]

129. It is not 12 billion in one year

From the OP which links to the actual bill.

"This modification is estimated to save $11.9 billion over ten years."

"What is it about hitting the poor?" This was a temporary increase, the increase in the Recovery Act was not intended to be permanent. Congress already inacted a permanent increase in 2008, with the Farm Bill. That will not be touched. The recession is not going to be permanent if the Government is doing it's job.

Is the recession still happening now? Sure it is, which is why there is an arbituary date in the future, 2014 on expiring that temporary increase of 13.6%. If Democrats, had immediately allowed that temporary increase to expire, as in now, during the recession, I could get behind your point totally. That would be wrong if they did that during a recession. It's a good thing they are not considering expiring that increase during an "economic downturn".

Can Democrats go back and revisit whether that 13.6% increase should remain after 2014? Yes they can. Hopefully the recession which was the cause for the temporary increase, will be over by then. Only time will tell. In the meantime, that temporary increase will not be touched for another 4 years.

This whole OP is about Media lies and spin. If the media would tell the ENTIRE truth, that would include saying the 13.6% increase came out of the Recovery Act and was a temporary fix during the recession, I wouldn't take issue with it at all. BUT they are not, because they have an agenda, during an election year to make it appear that the Democrats are monsters, "picking on the poor", by "cutting" 13.6% from food stamps. Where do you think they got the 13.6% from? The temporary increase in the Recovery Act was exactly 13.6%. All I am asking is the media tell the ENTIRE truth, not leave IMPORTANT details out to support their spin for their Repuke friends who will take it an run with it.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ipaint]

131. Spinning the humanity of cutting food stamps during a depression.

"Sensitive to the risky politics of cutting benefits for the neediest Americans, aides have been on a behind-the-scenes push to convince think tanks, unions and reporters of both the necessity and humanity of the cuts. In their telling, it is not a cut at all. It is merely a “technical fix” for years in the future."

http://washingtonindependent.com/93443/to-get-medicaid-and-education-aid-to-states-an-unprecedented-cut-to-food-stamps


Just a little tech fix, nothing to see here. The humanity of cuts to programs for the poor. That's the DLC for you.

[SunsetDreams]

135. I had not seen that article before

You, apparently would like for me to believe yet another media spin? Sorry it doesn't cut it.
That article mentions David Obey, it quotes him as saying that the White House wanted to do this. They sent an "unofficial request", they didn't want to take the political heat for an official one. Who sent the request? It doesn't say, it's just more of that some anonymous White House Aide said this. ANYBODY can do that.

"That's the DLC for you" Obama is not a member of the DLC, never has been. I've looked into that, because it's being thrown around way too much. I didn't even know who the DLC was, until I saw it being thrown around here.


By the way, my opinion is not a "talking point".
(From your previous post "At least I now know where you get you're talking points from."

It is blatant dishonesty what the media is doing. They are leaving out facts, which come from the actual bills in this case, not some anonymous source. It's never a talking point to defend Democrats on a Democratic Website. The spin lies with the media. This idea that it is a talking point, when someone disagrees with your opinion, really doesn't make sense on a Democratic website.

[ipaint]

136. You and the media are leaving out the fact that a food stamp cut to

a temporary program based only on wishful thinking will hurt millions of poor people. That apparently is an example of "humanity". What about the senate bill to fund the first lady's program which cuts food stamps further. I guess if a little "humanity" is good, might as well go for some more.

Obama refers to himself as a new democrat. New Democrat = DLC = neo lib = free trade/globalism.

Attempting to defend a cut in the food stamp program regardless of whether the program was temporary or permanent without reporting the very real consequences for those who will suffer under these cuts, while spinning the "humanity" of the cut and trying to pass it off as a minor tech fix is bullshit.

[boppers]

152. "Reduction in benefits = cut."

Well, that would be the stumbling block in comprehension.

[Riley133]

142. Temp Assistance to Needy Families coming up to bat

And the unemployment extension, of course.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/congress_votes_for_school_funding_cuts_food_stamps.html

[Cherchez la Femme]

127. My hope is because it is Correct & Proper to do so

Incurable, which makes me usually wrong on those certain matters, optimist.

[ProSense]

35. Fix what now?

The fact that temporary increases due to the recession are being kept in place until 2014?

[progressoid]

39. A an actual jobs bill that doesn't use political and financial chicanery.

As I said above, if the food stamp increase was going to expire anyway, then there isn't any actual savings to pay for this bill. So either the administration and congress is lying about the money being saved or we are actually cutting spending on food stamps.

The money has to come from somewhere and it ain't coming out of Raytheon's budget.

[ProSense]

44. "if the food stamp increase was going to expire anyway"

So you have no problem with it expiring, just with the fact that they set an actual date for its expiration?

[progressoid]

47. Woosh - miss the point completely.

I'll type louder this time.

Either the administration and congress is lying about the money being saved or we are actually cutting spending on food stamps.

[ProSense]

64. The money isn't being saved, it's going to fund something else.

What the hell is so hard to understand? It was open-ended, and now it's not.

The cuts aren't effective for another four and a half years. It was designed as a temporary measure, and it's still temporary. This is a ridiculous thing to debate.

[progressoid]

66. EXACTLY!!! You agree with me!

There is no cost savings! Even though the link provided in the OP says "Under the bill...This modification is estimated to save $11.9 billion over ten years." There is no savings.



And we also agree on this, "The cuts aren't effective for..."
Didja catch that? "cuts" You called them cuts. Because that's what they are. Cuts.

If the govt took 10 billion dollars from the EPA and gave it to the Army. We would call that a budget cut for the EPA. Open ended is not an issue. For the agency and the people they serve, (in the case of food stamps, the American people) it would be a budget cut.

[ProSense]

67. No, I don't agree with you. n/t

[Mimosa]

126. There's always money for wars, isn't there? No cutbacks there.... n/t

[Cherchez la Femme]

128. Priorities, ya know

of the Presidential kind :(

[ProSense]

15. "Likewise, in four years..."

The Bush tax cuts aren't expiring in four years. Also, most people seem to want them to expire.

A lot could happen in four years. Remember, the President is ramping up hunger and poverty programs, and had pledged to end child hunger. The Senate has already passed a $4.5 billion child nutrition bill that has now moved to the House.

The fact is that food stamps are not being cut. The stimulus increases will remain intact until after 2014.

[Riley133]

141. Agreed

Particularly since there isn't anyone I can think of who believes we will be recovered by 2014.

[fogonthelake]

14. But the logic is the same.

[SunsetDreams]

17. So by that logic

since you are using it, should I assume that you want the Bush Tax Cuts to remain?
I don't think I will make that assumption, because like I said they are two different issues.

[fogonthelake]

21. yes, different issues, which is the important. But logic is the same.

[SunsetDreams]

23. So what exactly is the point

you are trying to make? All temporary increases should be allowed to expire? All temporary increases should continue?
Some temporary increases, depending on the issue, should be allowed to remain/expire?

I'm not sure why the logic being the same is made to be a point here.

[fogonthelake]

25. you seemed so determined in the OP to say that

food stamps were not being cut, but they are--in 2014 --temporary or not-the new law will cut them out. simple as that.

[SunsetDreams]

26. You seem so determined to IMPLY that they are being Cut

when a Temporary increase is said to expire in 2014.

The increase was due to the recession, it explicitly stated it was temporary in the first place. It was not meant to be permanent.
If Congress decides that they should make it permanent, they will do so. The evidence for/against that cannot be evaluated yet, beyond 2014.

[fogonthelake]

76. yes, in 2014 the stamps will be cut according to this new law. You got it now.

[SunsetDreams]

96. No, that is not what I said, only what you are IMPLYING is happening

[fogonthelake]

97. LOL. I know what is happening. But I have

stated my piece and I guess I will just leave it at that.

[Spheric]

132. You just don't understand how to play three dimensional chess.

See, in three dimensional chess you can save $11.9 billion dollars in food stamp money by not paying it out to people without cutting anything. Shoot, you could do away with food stamps altogether and it would just be going back to 1950's levels.

It's the same with Social Security. Reducing the benefits paid out is not cutting anything. Just ask our new DU hero Al Simpson. He's said that over and over again. And, I'm sure that any reduction in benefits the Catfood Commission comes up with won't go into effect for years. That will give us plenty of time to fix it by undoing whatever it is we just did.

I hope it is all clearer now. Quit playing checkers and grow up. Learn to be reasonable and pragmatic.

Sheesh.

[phleshdef]

19. Um no, they were temporary tax cuts. And this was a temporary food stamp increase.

[joeglow3]

27. Slightly different

My understanding is that they used a rate of inflation much higher than what we have experienced. Thus, they are bringing the inflationary increases more into reality. Assuming that is the case, it is clearly not a cut.

[phleshdef]

16. If government is actually doing its job, those food stamps shouldn't be needed in 2014.

[SunsetDreams]

32. exactly :)

[TheKentuckian]

48. Based on what? The program is under funded at the moment

The food pantries are overwhelmed.

[phleshdef]

59. Based on the fact that more people should be back to work, making actual money.

If government is doing its job, significantly less people should have to rely on food stamps to feed themselves. Why anyone would attempt to argue with a statement like that is beyond me.

[TheKentuckian]

61. There is no indication that more people will be back to work, earning living wages, or that

government is doing a job that will make your champagne wishes come true.

Faith is not evidence.

[phleshdef]

63. What part of the word "if" in the phrase "if govt is doing its job", do you not fucking understand?

You are so desperate to have an argument, you are looking for arguments where there aren't any. Its embarassing. Chill the hell out and stop overanalyzing. I said nothing that you have any reason to disagree with with that statement and all this inventing of fake arguments isn't going to actually grant you something.

[TheKentuckian]

73. Wrong. You asserted these conditions where a fact. Facts don't call for "if's", facts are

Facts are established. Your entire argument was predicated on a conditional presented as a certainty and now you have the brazen audacity to get huffy that your claims are questioned. Your tactics are transparent and pitiful.

If wishes were fishes then we'd all cast our nets.

There are few if any indicators of less need (nor that current levels of need are satisfied) in the foreseeable future. Again, the need is intense and growing every single week as the 99ers lose all means of support and wages flatline, so we should certainly be scrambling to find ways to bolster the program rather than using it as a piggybank for other programs.

At best, this is sending the wrong message and makes any thought of more resources a topic that is off the table.

[phleshdef]

139. LOL. What a load of shit. Your posts are becoming parodies of themselves at this point.

Even if you try to go the extra mile to make your responses sound intelligent, a stupid argument is still a stupid argument.

There is nothing to question about my claims unless you are a conservative.

If government is doing its job, the need for additional food stamp aid should decrease. If it doesn't then government has not been doing its job. You want to continue to embarassing yourself by purposefully overanalyzing or misinterpreting that statement, be my guest.

[TheKentuckian]

146. What factor dictates a downward revision of the length of the stimulus?

I assume there was the expectation that the government would do "it's job" when the funding was allocated and the length set. So, the question remains operative regardless of your inability to answer it.

You know that conditions have not improved in such a way to indicate a reduction in need from when the funding duration was set meaning either a reduction has no merit at this time or you are asserting that food stamps were overfunded in the first place, potentially meaning the whole deal isn't properly weighted and targeted.

Why do you believe they overshot the needs of the good stamp program so drastically and what made them catch the error at this time?

Questions aren't stupid because you don't have an answer other than a talking point and they don't go away because you throw some snark out.

[phleshdef]

147. You are making up fucking questions regarding shit I wasn't even talking about.

Are you really so socially inept that you misinterpret, overanalyze and basically completely misunderstand things people say on a regular basis? There are no operative questions in this conversation, at least not coming from you, because you don't have an operative understanding of what I'm even saying apparently. I made a broad philosophical generalization about how I feel the state of society should be if government is doing its job. You are creating strawman arguments while jerking off to the dictionary and basically acting like a complete douche bag over nothing.

[TheKentuckian]

148. Your generalization isn't a response to a specific policy decision

My questions are in direct response to the matter at hand and continue to be desperately avoided.

You dictated that your lazy generalization be accepted as and I quote, "FACT" and when questions of practical application and budget justification were made to question the situational application of the generalization you protest yet stubbornly hold on to the generalization while calling requests to defend your application "anti-social".

If being "social" requires ceding a non-applicable "chestnut" of common wisdom as a catch all defense of bad policy, ignoring what I see as common sense questions then guilty as charged.

[phleshdef]

149. Like I said, jerking off to the dictionary while saying absolutely nothing.

[TheKentuckian]

150. I don't need a dictionary. I was reading one everyday at five but you still dodge the questions

The game is justify the change in conditions that that indicates that a quicker end to the stimulus spending is in order?

There was an initial outlay, that amount was curtailed by reducing the length of the additional spending. What happened to justify that change? In actuality conditions have proven to be worse than speculated when the bill passed so what do they see now that makes them more optimistic than they were when they laid out the plan for the spending under discussion.

Did leadership overreact on food stamp funding? Was there the expectation that as you put it, that government wasn't going to do the job but has found they are?

Things are done for a purpose. What conditions have changed to revise the forecast downward?

Why can't you admit that you have no idea of what such a justification would be instead of putting your balls on the bar and demanding a beer? Why is it you cannot admit your "FACT" is a generalization that hasn't even made an argument that it is operative much less accurate in describing the cause of the policy "adjustment" or however you insist on spinning it?

Nothing today indicates a shorter duration of need than when the bill passed and you know it. What is the source of encouragement that need for food stamps will be less than the reinvestment act anticipated?

If you had "FACTS" you'd say this factor or that one. You would be able to identify these conditions that strongly indicate room for optimism and slap backs in celebration at what was done.

There is nothing. Just a witticism and indignation because it is swallowed or allowed to stand as "FACT".

[Kahuna]

55. This thread is like watching Abbott and Costello doing, whose on first..

Aye yi yi! Of all things to get one's knickers in a twist over. :crazy:

[SunsetDreams]

57. I couldn't agree more

[treestar]

33. The M$M is getting so irrelevant

Trying to control rather than just report. :mad:

[ipaint]

34. The only place they could have found money is the food stamp program?

What does it matter if the increase was temporary or permanent. How about we hit up our massive bloated corporate welfare system for the twelve billion, the oil companies are rolling in corp. welfare subsidies, and let those families with next to nothing to eat keep the $59.00 per month.

Food isn't getting any cheaper. Amazing, the only place the elite could find the money is to fuck the poor once again. And some democrats defend that.

[Zenlitened]

46. K&R for your comment.

...the only place the elite could find the money is to fuck the poor once again. And some democrats defend that.

The mind, it reels.

Way to manage the narrative, huh? :(

[inna]

79. +100. Isn't it amazing though? I must say, I didn't expect this.

This is a new low, it's as if we are moving into uncharted territories here.

Reducing vital benefits for the hungry, struggling families is unconscionable and morally reprehensible, especially when so many people are hurting and when the demand for food assistance is at its record high and increasing. And when struggling families will see their monthly food assistance decrease by $60 (that is, $700+ a year), what do you think it will mean for them if not CUTS? Those reductions in benefits ARE cuts to them, for all practical purposes.

The OP can call those reductions "rollback of temporary increases" (or whatever makes them feel better) instead of "cuts", if they want, but that is just engaging in semantics and is irrelevant and missing the point.




Even in purely pragmatic terms, this idea to reduce food assistance for the poor families doesn't make a bit of sense and is completely counterproductive in terms of economic recovery. After all, why gut THE single most effective stimulus program?

(See illustration here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/06/research_desk_whats_a_dollar_o.html )

[SunsetDreams]

82. The recession will live on

is that what you are saying? That is the SOLE reason for the temporary increase.

There was a Food Stamp increase in the Farm Bill in 2008, that is not being touched.

[ipaint]

106. Of course the recession is going to live on.

It's a deep depression for those on the bottom. It's not going to magically go away.

You need to add conservatively at least a quarter of a million new jobs a month starting yesterday and continuing for the next 42 months to get back to semi normal. There are 30 million under and unemployed americans currently, well over 6 million and counting long term unemployed.

I don't know what magic wand you think the democrats are going to wave to pull us out of this mess. They refuse to do a massive job program. Combine that with a pathetic health insurance bill, 2 absolutely useless massively wasteful wars and financial reform that does nothing to regulate derivatives and it's all downhill from here.

The unemployment benefits are extended piecemeal after months of pulling repub teeth every time we need an extension.

Whatever gave the rich millionaires in congress and the administration the idea that the recession and all it's resulting hunger, homelessness and unemployment would be over in 3 years? What are these guys smoking?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kahuna]

69. Can you make your point without the personal attacks? nt

[SunsetDreams]

71. No worries, I can't see it.

It got lost in the internet sphere, and didn't make it to it's intended target.

[Kahuna]

137. My post wasn't to you. It was to the post that is now deleted.

:hi:

[SunsetDreams]

145. yep I know

I had to reply to you, there was no other way :spray:

[JoePhilly]

78. The amount is less than what??

Please be specific. Which amount is less than what other amount?

Food Stamps were increased temporarily, as part of the stimulus. They were not increased "going forward".

In the stimulus, a date was selected at which they would RETURN to pre-stimulus levels. They were TEMPORARY.

They are still temporary. The phase out date has simly moved in.

Which means the amount is NOT less. It is NOT lower than where it was pre-stimulus ... it is HIGHER.

[Scurrilous]

54. Thanks.

K & R :thumbsup:

[Zenlitened]

70. Your next scheduled pay raise is being canceled.

And your most recent pay raise will soon be rescinded.

But it's not a cut. It's just that the CEO needs a few new silk suits.

:shrug:

This is not a perfect analogy, I admit, but I hope you'll sense how people might see unfairness in the food stamp situation.

[ProSense]

74. This isn't remotely similar to a scheduled pay raise.

If there had been no recession, there would have been no stimulus. The stimulus is finite, and the recession isn't going to last forever.

The increases are remaining in place for another four and a half years. Ending the increases have no impact on COLA adjustments for food stamps.

[Zenlitened]

87. You, of all people, I would expect to understand the significance...

... of the messaging aspect of this decision.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

107. "messaging aspect of this decision"?

Messaging? The fact is that food stamps aren't being cut, and the "messaging" that it is is a distortion.

[SunsetDreams]

75. You are right it's not a perfect analogy.

But I do understand what you are trying to say nonetheless.

The increases from 2008 are not being touched.
Naturally if people don't hear the truth, sure they will be upset. I couldn't agree more.
The reason why this is being spun this way, is, it's an election year. It's outright dishonesty from the media.
Give the whole story, don't just say they are cutting it by 13.6 percent which interestingly matches the temporary increase, I might add.

Hopefully the recession will be over by 2014, and the temporary increase will no longer be needed.
There are reasons for arbituary dates set in the future. Many times, as in this case, they are based on circumstances and as situations warrant.

[Zenlitened]

86. But the increase is even less "temporary" than planned, isn't it?

In other words, an additional $x/year was supposed to be spent for another 4 years.

Now, instead, an additional $x/year will be spent only for another 3 years.

A cut in spending of $1x. (Oversimplified, yes.) That's why people are reacting to this as a cut. Promised $$$ have been taken back.

Fortunately, as you say, no one will feel any additional pain right away. But people are bound to FEEL it as unfair, especially when they see the guys wearing big diamond rings and silk suits* doing just fine, not a care in the world.

It makes the Dems look like tools, and that's the last thing we can afford right now.




* Gratuitous Pretenders reference. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsnMFfMmV8I

[TheKentuckian]

89. and absolutely nothing about present conditions signals that the conditions are improving faster

than expected. Absolutely nothing.

No one misunderstands what is happening but the reasoning for the reallocation is very faulty.
I'd love to hear one pollyanna tell me what factors on the landscape that give the green light to revise the stimulus money length of allocation, other than upwards because of the huge amount of need.

What possible justification is there other than we really over allocated and need is trending down importantly?

Of course that is not the case, need out paces capacity, many with great need suffer silently out of pride, many with need are turned away, and too many of those that get help struggle to stay fed.

I don't believe advocates have a doubt in the world that food stamps will need these diverted resources. They either don't care or will hope for the best and trust.

I have no idea what is hard to get about present conditions not dictating a reallocation for this program's duration or level of funding other than upwards on allocations for at least two years.

The logic that if conditions improve there will be less need is fine but it only applies when there is some plausible reason to see real declines in need. Reality doesn't jibe with the reasoning, there is no reason to revise down.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

77. No, it's not a perfect analogy.

It's outright dishonest.

[Zenlitened]

83. What makes it outright dishonest?

Can you elaborate?

[sandnsea]

93. That's exactly what happened in the 80s

Your regular pay raise, due to inflation, will no longer take effect. We're also reducing the annual bonus.

Don't you remember?

[Zenlitened]

95. Absolutely, yes. I do remember. Frankly, I think it's a big part of the reason...

... so many people need food stamps today, in 2010.

The foundation has been eroded out from underneath ordinary Americans for decades, now.

So when the big wave hit in 2007/2008, it was practically inevitable that millions upon millions would be swept away.

Main Street America has been gutted. That's what makes it so galling now, when folks are truly in trouble, that the "only" place to find budget "savings" is in the programs designed to help them.

I understand that this was a temporary increase from the get-go, I really do.

But what concerns me, in addition to the well-being of my neighbors, is the way Democrats are accepting this Reagan's America in which the wealthiest of the wealthy are untouchable... but the rest of us can become Scapegoat of the Day at a moment's notice.

Politically, it's just dumb, IMO. Our Democratic leaders damned well ought to know better.

[sandnsea]

101. Then please argue *for* repealing the Bush tax cuts

And stop helping to confuse people about what Democrats are getting done.

[Zenlitened]

103. Fail. Perhaps you were replying to someone else?

Is there anyone on this board who needs convincing that Bush's disastrous tax cuts for the rich need to expire?

Do you somehow know details of my efforts on that topic?

And finally... I'm sorry to hear that you feel confused. I can see how this effort to scapegoat the neediest would have that effect. (Or is that not what you meant by your last comment?)

[sandnsea]

104. The neediest got a 13% increase

That IS NOT scapegoating them.

Where were you when all these benefits were passed, singing Obama's praises so the entire country would know how much help they got?

[Zenlitened]

105. If I remember correctly, I was at Charlie's Kitchen in Harvard Square...

... sitting at the counter, talking politics, encouraging support for spending to help the neediest. Probably it was the food stamps issue that started the discussion among diner regulars.

[sandnsea]

108. That's not what I asked

I asked whether you went around from diner to diner, heaping praise on the President for helping the neediest with a 13% increase in food stamps. That's what I asked. And further, did you make sure all the lowest income voters knew that it had gotten done too?

[Zenlitened]

110. I'm certain I didn't go to any other diners that day...

... and I haven't yet reached all the lowest income voters.

So I guess you're right: I've utterly failed the President and the Democratic Party, and it's my fault they have been so unable to take control of the telling of their own story.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

Or do those goalposts you're toting around still have a little travel left in 'em?

:hi:

[sandnsea]

111. You keep skirting the question

You said you went to a diner and had a discussion, "encouraging support for spending to help the neediest".

That is quite different from saying "wahoo, we just passed a 13% increase in food stamps. Since the stimulus, I am curious how many times you said that?

[Zenlitened]

112. Eleven. Although I may have substituted "yippee" for "wahoo." - n/t

Are you for freakin' real? :wow:

[sandnsea]

113. You never did because you never knew

I'm for freakin' real. You on the other hand, *sigh*, just keep standing on the sidelines, throwing in molotovs, and blaming the fire department because the city is burning.

[Zenlitened]

114. Yep, you've sure got me figured out.

Do you realize you sound increasingly delusional when you make things up about someone you've never met, and pretend you know who they are and what they do with their days?

[Whisp]

81. K&R!

[quiet.american]

84. Republicans are the best proof that Democrats will not let this bill affect food stamps increases.

Republicans were/are whining that no food stamp funding decrease will take place (even as they insist that Bush's tax cuts never be allowed to expire):

The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicaid/113595-house-sends-16-billion-in-emergency-medicaid-funding-to-white-house

"We do not add a nickel to the national debt," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

Republicans aren't so convinced. They worry that Democrats have offered offsets using funds they'll simply replenish somewhere down the line. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Fla.), for instance, warned that the food-stamp cuts "will never actually really take place."

Indeed, Democratic leaders are already vowing to replace some of the offsets later. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), for example, said she's "not happy" with either the food stamp or the renewable energy cuts. "I hope," Pelosi added, "that we can make that up in another way."

[bvar22]

85. Tell that to a Single Mother feeding her kids on Food Stamps.

Lets rescind the recent increases in Military Spending instead.

[ProSense]

88. Anyone receiving foods stamps

will know the difference between spin and reality when they continue to receive benefits at the increased rate for the next four and a half years.

Until then, nothing is changing.

[JoePhilly]

91. But But But ... the media said its a cut!!!!

And it is so easy for us to believe the lie. And the truth is boring and complicated.

Who has time for the truth??

[sandnsea]

92. My daughter is a single mother feeding her kids on food stamps

She's shocked that she gets $550 a month to feed pre-schoolers. I reminded her some people are feeding two teen-agers on that and she acknowledged teen-age boys have an endless stomach. But my husband and I don't even spend $550 a month on food, and we feed her kids half the time ourselves.

The problem is when food stamps are cut after single moms go to work and have all of those expenses. If the left could ever pay attention to what's really important, there would be stunning progress in this country.

[fogonthelake]

134. Yes, it is a difficult situation to say the least..

I have a niece in the same situation. There is little support (financial) when she gets a job. Which tend to be lower paying jobs-plus as you say eligibility for food stamps is cut dramatically or is zero. Our state does try to give some support but child care support is not enough.

[Kingofalldems]

94. The giddy trumpeter of bad news about Democrats won't like this one

Oops----->:shrug: I seem to have seen a post claiming just the opposite. What's the deal?:shrug:

[SunsetDreams]

98. There is way too much misinformation going on.

Without delving into the actual bill or bills in this case, just taking the media spin for the truth.

[Hekate]

99. How dare you post actual facts? It is so much more satisfying to rip the Dems for heartless elitism

It would have been SO MUCH better to NOT do it, so that people would never have the expectation of getting help from the feds in the first place.

Like the Republicans, in fact. Hmmmm. Never give help at all, so that people won't waste time expecting help or complaining that they never get it.

Now look what the Dems have gotten for their pains: nonstop complaining that IT'S NOT ENOUGH. Of course it's not enough -- but whose fault is it that we have the deficit we have?

Hekate
:argh:

[rury]

100. And people who hate Obama and everything he does

need to not be so quick to believe the media and condemn him.

[ipaint]

109. Cutting temp or permanent food stamps, given the wealth hoarded at the top, is pathetic.

American food stamps are not generous, averaging only $4.50 a day even after being bumped up in the recession-era stimulus — less than you’d need to buy two meals at McDonald’s. And since the start of the recession, the number of families depending on them has skyrocketed. The economic crisis has pushed 12.9 million people into SNAP; as of April, more than 40 million collect the bare-bones benefits. More than 6 million Americans report no income whatsoever except for SNAP — because they are not eligible for unemployment insurance, Social Security, disability or other programs.

Sensitive to the risky politics of cutting benefits for the neediest Americans, aides have been on a behind-the-scenes push to convince think tanks, unions and reporters of both the necessity and humanity of the cuts. In their telling, it is not a cut at all. It is merely a “technical fix” for years in the future.

...the ARRA increase to SNAP benefits boosted benefits from meager to less-meager, advocates say. “We have been very supportive of the ARRA boost,” says Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center. “But it underscored that these benefits are not generous. Anecdotally, we heard that the ARRA boost let some SNAP recipients keep going to the supermarket in the third or fourth week of the month, rather than going to a soup kitchen starting after the second week. They were stretching out their benefits, and purchasing some more nutritious food, like fresh fruit and vegetables.” Vollinger notes that even with the ARRA funding the average SNAP benefit is not really enough to eat.

And FRAC argues that that the situation where the government might actually cut benefits — where in Feb. 2014, a recipient might receive a $400 benefit on their EBT card, and in March, 2014, $350 — would be “devastating” for recipients. “In the 1990s, there were terrible cuts to the program,” Vollinger explains. “But nobody ever started receiving less money . That situation — what will happen if people aren’t well-informed about the cut? What if they don’t recognize that the benefit will be lower?” It has never happened in the history of the program, Vollinger notes.

http://washingtonindependent.com/93443/to-get-medicaid-and-education-aid-to-states-an-unprecedented-cut-to-food-stamps

[Mimosa]

125. Thanks for the truth, IPaint. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

115. It's a Republican talking point and it's being used by many here...

It's similar to when Republicans say letting Bush's tax cuts expire amounts to a tax increase. It does not. It's just going back to the pre-tax cut levels.

[ipaint]

117. The only difference is we are talking about poor people with little to no food and gluttonous

million/billionaires. Minor point.

[Drunken Irishman]

118. It's not really a solid point, though.

Because A) we're talking about something that is three or four years down the road and B) it's very likely things will have improved by that point and hopefully there won't be as many people needing food stamps by then. If things are still as bad as they are today.

The funding isn't going to dry up tomorrow. It was only temporary to begin with (and DU should support such a rollback, since they didn't think too highly of the food stamp funding originally).

[ipaint]

119. I don't see that improvement is likely at all.

In fact where are 14 million jobs coming from. Plus what we need for new entrants into the job market plus what we need for part time people who want to work full time, plus what we need for totally discouraged workers.

When exactly does the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs per month begin.

Democrats on DU that don't support food stamp increases? Really?

[dflprincess]

120. And, no doubt,

the price of food will drop in the next 4 years as well. :sarcasm:

[smalll]

122. Um, has no-one brought up the Michelle angle yet?

From "The Hill" - 8/14/10

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/114271-dems-consider-more-food-stamp-cuts-to-fund-child-nutrition-bill

"Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food-stamp program to fund a state-aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child-nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as the food-stamp program.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food-stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state-funding bill that President Obama signed this week."

Bad "optics" -- (as the kids say.)

[Mimosa]

124. Many seniors on S.S. are also on food stamps

I'm not old enough for social security. But I know of the mothers of friends who are dependent on S.S. and who also receive food stamps. They are not living high on the hog. I was shopping with one of them a few years ago and buying an avocado was a luxury for her.


No self-respecting Democrat should ever support taking food benefits away from people who need them. And i cannot trust those who attempt to justify it. Tax the rich! It was done in the 30s through the 1960s!

[KakistocracyHater]

133. the measure of a country is how they treat their most vulnerable

*

[Cha]

138. Good to know..

thanks Sunset Dreams.

[EFerrari]

140. I hope those people were only temporarily hungry. n/t

[ipaint]

143. I believe the politically acceptable term (whitewash) is food insecure.

Temporary food insecurity.

There, that doesn't sound so bad. :sarcasm:

[EFerrari]

144. And yet, this thread got 48 votes.

We really need to start thinking about what all this spin means in terms of real people. If that's possible. lol

:hi:

[DemocraticPilgrim]

151. Thanks for verifying the facts, I always wait for more info before reacting now.