How did today's Food Stamp Cut become law?

[cthulu2016]

Was this part of some deal?

[elleng]

1. Yes, a 'pay-for,'

discussed on All In with Chris Hayes just now.

[alc]

2. temporary boost from 2009 is ending

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]

3. The middle class and the poor are still in recession. This is a betrayal. I can't help but wonder

which democrats voted for this. They will not get my vote.

[badtoworse]

4. It was a temporary increase in Food Stamp funding that expired on November 1, 2013.

That was the deal. Nobody cut anything.

[morningfog]

5. It was a planned cut. It was most certainly a cut.

[badtoworse]

7. Nope. You're trying to spin this - temporary is temporary

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]

8. The people who are suffering the most in this economy know better. If they want to cut food stamps

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]

10. It is absurd. First of all, most people receiving food stamps now weren't when it was increased.

And, EVERYONE on them now depends on them. Every dollar worth. To them and in reality, it is a cut.

[morningfog]

9. You're trying to spend this. A reduction is a cut. Period.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

12. Something expiring is not the same thing as a cut.

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]

13. the need is still there, therefore they should extend it, not let it expire. Letting it expire is

the same thing as cutting it. You can try to spin it all you want but those who depend on it know better.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

14. Well, then, look at it this way.

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]

17. You're new!

With corporate talking points!

[morningfog]

19. A reduction is a cut. Period. This isn't complicated.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. yeah, tell that to those who survive on food stamps.

The 1% are the only ones who are out of the recession. The middle class and the poor are still in recession.

[leftstreet]

15. +1 Tax cuts for the rich never seem to expire

Help for the rest...?

[liberal_at_heart]

18. exactly.

[woo me with science]

16. The chocolate ration is constantly increased!

Just like the ranks of the corporate talking point posters at DU!

[Yo_Mama]

11. It was in 2010 and it had something to do with the funding of the school nutrition program

http://markbittman.com/senate-passes-child-nutrition-bill/

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