House panel set to OK cut in food stamp program

[OhioChick]

Source: AP

May 15, 2013 at 10:48 AM

WASHINGTON -- The House Agriculture Committee has begun work on a five-year farm bill that would make small cuts to the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program.

The panel is making the cuts to appease conservatives who say the food aid has become too expensive. The legislation would cut about $2.5 billion a year, or 3 percent, to the program, now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The legislation would achieve the cuts partly by eliminating "broad-based categorical eligibility," or automatic food stamp benefits when people sign up for other programs.

The farm bill costs almost $100 billion annually and would set policy for farm subsidies, rural programs and the food aid. The House panel is considering the legislation Wednesday, one day after the Senate Agriculture Committee approved its version.

Read more: http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/05/house_panel_set_to_ok_cut_in_f.html#incart_river_default

[liberal N proud]

1. Austerity at the cost of the poor

[denverbill]

3. Yes and you can bet they left in the enormous corporate welfare for factory farms.

Cotton subsidies, tobacco subsidies, sugar subsidies, crop insurance subsidies.

[amerciti001]

6. You left out the biggest corporate welfare recipient...

of them all (drum roll) Walmart!!
That's where most of the SNAP dollars flow, not to mention the fact that most of the workers for Walmart also qualify for SNAP benefits, and they are supposed to be working for a living--damn

[pscot]

18. It's The American Way

Makes you proud, don't it.

[liberal N proud]

22. What really gets me is the right wing has so many Americans supporting cuts to welfare

And saying nothing about the astronomical corporate welfare.

[zeemike]

2. And the scandal happy congress will force Obama to sigh off on it or else

They will proceed with impeachment...that is what this is all about.
Just watch what comes out of congress now...big cuts to social programs.

[leftyohiolib]

4. then cut the agri-business welfare

[mountain grammy]

5. If only, if only, the poor could somehow delay flights.

[sikofit3]

7. I was thinking along the same lines as you...

Its all surreal and unbelievable. Hungry people, especially children, obviously are less important than having to wait at the airport.

[Bully Taw]

12. why do you think...

that only the wealthy fly? I fly a lot for work. Business travelers make up most of the people on many flights, and my guess is that they all are working for their money like I am.

If you want to poke at the wealthy, why don't you delay the tee times at Burning Tree?

[Bandit]

17. Right,,, your travel time is far more important than food for the hungry...

[Bully Taw]

24. you don't think its possible to have both?

Why is one connected to the other? do you think that if I am delayed at the airport, hungry people will be fed? Read the post I responded to. then maybe you will understand my point. the poster's point was that he/she wished the poor could punish the rich by airlines delays. My question was simply why they thought that only rich people flew.

but, if you want to take your argument to that extreme, and it makes you feel warm at night to do so, go for it. You carry the weight of the world on your shoulders, don't you?

[mountain grammy]

31. Hey Bully, I said nothing about "only the wealthy fly"

but Congressmen fly and that's the point.... Oh, and the poor rarely fly. I can just see some full time Walmart "associate" making business trips..

[Bully Taw]

32. hard working people...

fly all the time. people that may not be poor, but they are also not rich. People that work hard for what they have.

People that work for Wal-Mart fly all the time, and in large numbers. your generalizations about those that must fly for a living are misguided. You say you were talking about congressmen, but I don't believe you were limiting your comments to just Congress.

[mountain grammy]

35. Believe what you want, you really don't get it.

[Bully Taw]

44. i think i get it...

you just can't defend it.

[mountain grammy]

45. Nothing to defend.. you're the one making this up as you go along.

[uppityperson]

8. Rec for wtf

[cvoogt]

9. Oh, SNAP

That'll show the poor some trickle-down economics. Trickling straight from the House to those less fortunate. Thanks, House!

[Doctor_J]

10. In a surprisingly rapid response, the president declared he will veto any such measure

and said, "find some cuts to make somewhere besides the neediest people in America".

[blkmusclmachine]

36. HAHA

Good one.

[Politicub]

11. "Small cuts" means people won't eat

It may look small on paper, but could represent a days worth or more of meals for a family.

I hate the republican-led house with a passion.

They laugh as they create policies that starve children.

[blkmusclmachine]

37. It's what any good "community organizer" would do.

But, then, they never said which "community" was organized. I'm guessing said "community" is at the corner of Wall Street and Too Big To Jail Avenue.

[Politicub]

43. The house panel is working on a bill with the cuts

You must be on the wrong thread.

Bashing community organizing puts one in the same league as Sara Palin. And that's not an exaggeration. Google it.

[synapticwave]

13. The senate version has $4.1B in cuts to SNAP

so, I guess this is where we're supposed to say "thanks" for not cutting SNAP more?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. That bill is not going anywhere. It will die in subcommittee.

[synapticwave]

19. It's already out of committee, passed 15-5

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/14/2010531/senate-committee-approves-4b-in-food-aid-cuts-as-house-preps-even-worse-measure/

It may not pass a floor vote, but it passed the committee and with fairly bi-partisan support.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. I wasn't up on the latest developments. Thanks for sharing. It won't pass the chamber.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

14. It won't get anywhere in the Senate. We need to hold the Senate in 2014. We have no other choice!

[Doctor_J]

21. And we have the White House, which has a veto

you have probably forgotten that since the president himself seems to.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

27. I won't acknowledge your unnecessary snarkiness. I assert that we don't want this kind of cut

to go further than the Senate. Hell, we want it to die in subcommittee.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. We "have" the White House. In. Name. Only.

[onehandle]

16. The 1% will make good Soylent Green one day.

Last edited Wed May 15, 2013, 01:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Nice and tender from a lifetime of not doing any real work.

[SamKnause]

20. Food Stamps

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 06:19 AM - Edit history (1)

There is no such thing as a small cut when you only receive $109.00 worth of food stamps per MONTH !!!

They should be increasing, not decreasing food stamp amounts.

How many millions, or billions of dollars could be saved if WalMart paid a decent salary to their employees who qualify for food stamps ?

This countries priorities are so F'd up.

[blkmusclmachine]

39. But DC has PLENTY of money for 30,000 armed Drones to patrol your neighborhood:

Must Keep the 99% Under Constance Surveillance!

[jwirr]

23. So they are cutting the automatic recipients from other programs! All they will accomplish is more

paperwork when those families sign up the usual way and in the long run that will add to the administrative costs. Greed is another word for stupid.

[Auntie Bush]

30. So true! If someone's income is low enough for one subsidy then

it's low enough to qualify for another without going through tons of redundant paperwork. This makes no sense...however look at all the jobs it will create. If you look hard enough you can find some good in poop.

[jwirr]

49. I thought about the jobs also.

[Daniel537]

50. More paper pushers to make life even harder for the poor?

No thanks. Those aren't the type of jobs we should be creating. These cuts are insane. Its like Spanish austerity on 'roids. Obama and Pelosi better resist this criminal bullshit. These Farm Bills are always stuffed with corporate welfare anyway.

[Auntie Bush]

51. " look at all the jobs it will create"

That was sarcastic!

[SunSeeker]

25. Helloooo AP. Not getting food stamps when you need them is not a "small cut."

What a bunch of douchebags. Maybe if they didn't spend all their time on the phone with miscreants trying to out our CIA operatives who warn us about Al Qaeda plots, they'd know what really matters to Americans--and what it means to a family of four to be turned down for food stamps because of those "small cuts." Funny, AP rarely refers to the 2-3% tax increases on the rich that would prevent these cuts as being "small increases." Or that fact the rich won't even feel them. But AP has no problem downplaying the severity of a poor person losing meals. Unbelievable.

[upaloopa]

26. We pay subsidies to growers but we can't pay to feed

hungry Americans.
We have our priorities wrong.

[Blandocyte]

28. A-holes get enraged over SNAP "entitlements"

but don't realize that SNAP funds are going into their local economy thus supporting jobs there and at the companies producing/farming the food. What a buncha short-sighted maroons they are. It's funny to watch them stammer and fume when I bring up the advantages of having the SNAP program and they realize the truth of it.

Their reaction to seeing SNAP used seems often to be "I don't like to see 'those people' getting free food through a program that uses my tax dollars." But they're usually cool with not requiring big business to pay more taxes even though that means the big businesses aren't supporting such programs.

"Does SNAP help people save on food money so they could spend more on stuff like gas?" "Yes." "Well, why not ask the oil companies to kick in a bit more for taxes so they can support the program along with you? It benefits the oil companies more directly than it benefits you, right?"

[Eksynyt]

33. I live with a conservative idiot

Who keeps rambling on about how food stamps is a program that gets "abused" by people that go out and buy a bunch of stuff like ice cream and Starbucks coffee at Safeway. What is a good way to respond to this?

[Gormy Cuss]

34. It's a supplemental food program

and those foods are both allowed, therefore it's not abuse.

[Archae]

40. Ice cream isn't that expensive...

But that coffee is.

And a person spending food stamps on expensive coffee will run out before the end of the month.

And before anyone dumps on me for being against food stamps, I am on them.

If I buy expensive food at the beginning of the month I'll run out before the end of the month.

[Ash_F]

42. see reply #41 /nt

[Gormy Cuss]

46. You're assuming that the Starbucks was expensive.

What if it was on sale and was the one splurge item at the end of the month? That's the thing about abstractly judging other's purchases -- it's risky business. It's also a sore point for me because I remember cashiers and others in line tsking over using food stamps or what I bought. This morons were doing this not to an adult but to a tween buying from my mother's carefully crafted list meant to maximize the food value. Yes, there were sometimes frivolous items like name brand tea, but only when there were very good sales.

As an adult I have never needed the assistance and for that I am grateful.

[Ash_F]

41. I believe at least coffee is not allowed.

I saw someone ahead of me in a check out have to put back a cup of coffee, which was among a few other items.

I don't know if it was because it counted as a 'hot food' or because it was ready to consume.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/retailers/eligible.htm

[Gormy Cuss]

47. Yes, it's because it was a cup of Joe.

A bag or can of coffee AFAIK is acceptable.

[Ash_F]

48. And that is much cheaper. /nt