General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsScuba
(53,475 posts)enlightenment
(8,830 posts)If he had said "it's welfare for wealthy people" then somebody would be jumping all over the comment, comparing the farm subsidies to welfare and saying that they aren't the same, at all, at all . . .
Adding a modifier, even if everyone knows the truth, sometimes keeps the wolves at bay.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)a terrible bill that cut $40 billion.
This said, I blame the Dems partly for this. There was a bill negotiated between the GOP and the Dems that cut only $11 billion ( ). The GOP added a couple poisoned amendments and the Democrats refused to vote for it as did the Tea Party (too many SNAP funds). This is how we ended up where we were.
I understand that Dems did not like the amendments added, but this is why we have conferences. Add to this that the conference would have to negotiate between a $4billion cut (senate version) and a 11 billion cut (initial House bill) rather than $40 billion. Guess which negotiation would have helped poor people the most.
Yes, the GOP are horrible, but sometimes you have to work with these horrible people to help people and decide what matters to you.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Neither would help them at all.
When the Republicans propose $40 billion in cuts the Democrats should propose a $60 billion increase. They need to learn how to negotiate.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)QuestForSense
(653 posts)Kelly defended the House plan to pass the bill in separate parts, saying they had tried to put a bigger piece of legislation together, but couldnt reach an agreement and had been forced to go another route.
Asked by Schieffer if the money would still come, he said absolutely."
I have never talked to one person who said we do not want to take care of the most vulnerable, he said.
What bothers me is that one in six Americans is on this program, he said. Were wasting billions on a program thats not lifting people from poverty, but keeping them in.
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), also a guest on "Face the Nation," scoffed at Kellys suggestion that food stamps were working to keep people down.
Its because their wages and incomes are so low," Durbin said. "Theyre working but they cant feed their children. It isnt a matter of defrauding American tax payers.
http://www.politico.com/
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)are on food stamps because they're so poor, NOT because they are gaming the system.
The ones gaming the system are the ones taking money for not growing crops.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)& K Wart.
Those corporations rely on the public purse to provide enough nutrition to keep their wage slaves alive, and then have the gall to push for cuts to the system.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)I don't watch the Sunday shows because it makes my BP soar, and especially when I watch old Bob with his leading winger questions to his winger guests. Actually, it's kind of hard to believe that question came out of his mouth (but I'm sure it did, since you say so Playinghardball.)
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... if someone on DU doesn't catch things and report on it, I would never know cause like I said, I just can't watch the winger Sunday morning shows, especially Candy Crowley on CNN.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Republicans are fucking lazy idiots who are WAY overpaid and just ASSUME that ANYONE can be an overpaid idiot because it was EASY for them.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It's the corporate America message. And you ain't seen nothing yet.
RC
(25,592 posts)Fla Dem
(23,654 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Media extortion fail.