House To Vote On Bill That Would Cut $4B A Year From Food Stamps, Allow Work Requirements

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

By MARY CLARE JALONICK | ASSOCIATED PRESS | 15 minutes ago in Politics

The House is expected to consider a bill this week that would cut food stamps by an estimated $4 billion annually and allow states to put broad new work requirements in place for recipients.

The legislation also would end government waivers that have allowed able-bodied adults who don't have dependents to receive food stamps indefinitely.

The vote comes after the House defeated a wide-ranging farm bill in June because many conservatives believed the cuts to the nearly $80 billion-a-year food stamp program weren't high enough. That bill would have made around $2 billion a year in cuts.

Food stamps have for decades been part of farm legislation. But House leaders separated the food and farm programs after the bill's June defeat and passed a farm-only bill in July. The Republican leaders, led by Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, then crafted the separate food stamp bill in an effort to appease conservatives who have been aggressively pushing for cuts to domestic food aid.

One in seven Americans use food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and the cost of the program has more than doubled in the past five years.

MORE...

http://www.newser.com/article/da8robro3/house-to-vote-on-bill-that-would-cut-4b-a-year-from-food-stamps-allow-work-requirements.html

Read more: http://www.newser.com/article/da8robro3/house-to-vote-on-bill-that-would-cut-4b-a-year-from-food-stamps-allow-work-requirements.html

[Iliyah]

1. UGH, well since a great many of the recipients

are in the "Red" districts, i.e., seniors, et al., what will be their excuse be . . .

BLAME Pres O.

[cstanleytech]

2. IMO a better way to go about reducing the number depending on food stamps would be

for the republicans in congress (including the tea party nutters) to stop trying to destroy the country and to do their jobs and work with the president to find solutions rather than work against him and in essence the majority of Americans.
Invest in things like helping communities to build sustainable local gardens where those able to work on the program can go to help out for a few hours a week.

[Daniel537]

4. To the GOP investing=spending.

Here in Florida we had a high-speed rail system that would have created thousands of jobs killed by Rick Scott because "it would have cost the taxpayers too much", never mind the fact that the Feds we're going to foot most of the bill. Its the same reason they oppose expanding Medicaid. They simply don't care.

[Cha]

6. Yes.. let the JOBS bill pass. But, no.. they'd rather government

circle the drain.

[Andy823]

8. Sounds good.

There are all kind so of ways to help those in need, your idea of investing in communities to build gardens and have people come there to work a few hours a week sounds like a good idea. The GOP, for some reason, never come up with good ideas, just ones that pretty much leave those who need help with less, but always seem to be right there to help their rich donors get all the "corporate" welfare, and tax cuts they can. It's pretty obvious who they want to help, and sooner or later many who have voted for them in the past will wake up and see just how bad it is putting these jerks in office. While many may not voter for a democrat, many will be mad enough to simply stop voting.

Thankfully the GOP seems to be doing all they can to alienate everyone who is not rich from their party, so that could help!

[jtuck004]

12. Most of the people who really need them don't vote, so it will have little to no impact.

They know it, and so do the Dems who care about votes.

[leftyohiolib]

18. in a way this might bring people to the polls who would otherwise stay home

[jtuck004]

20. Likely no. Half are children, they can't vote. Many of the rest don't, and haven't for years,

even as their conditions have worsened, and many are old and have real transportation issues, etc. A large percentage of people on food stamps work, which generally indicates voting, except that for the vast majority of those they will not be able to get off, or be too tired, or not have transportation, or are not politically involved. It will, at best, drag a minimal number out, but probably insignificant in comparison to the opposition.

The biggest segment are those who work, are not on food stamps, and for most of them it appears to be a non-starter. Here in the echo chamber it sounds a lot larger than it really is out on the street.

The largest effect will be to bolster the reputation of the "teabagger affiliated" among the crowd of people who vote for them, make them think they are doing something. The largest effect among likely Democratic voters is to give them something else to point a finger at.

The data is out there for anyone to read if they wish, it's fairly predictable, and good analysts have substantial documentation to describe what happens.

On the other hand, an entire network was fooled in the last presidential election, so just because one has analysts and true believers on their side doesn't mean they acknowledge reality until it is too late, so I am guessing there will be those who think otherwise on this side of the fence as well

[happyslug]

53. Actually, people over 66 do NOT get that much food Stamps

Remember, under the Social Security reforms passed under Reagan, we are in the process of increasing the retirement age to 68 at the present time. Thus the retirement age in 2013 for full benefits is age 66 NOT 65.

Once you hit 66, you are presumed to be disabled and thus eligible for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) if you are NOT eligible for Social Security (The Social Security Administration runs both program but Social Security taxes only applies to Social Security old age or Social Security Disability NOT SSI).

Unlike Social Security, SSI is reduced by any other source of Income, including any Social Security someone is getting.

SSI for 2013 is $710 for one person and $1066 for a couple

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/colafacts2013.htm

To be eleiblege for Food Stamps your income must be below 130% of the Federal Proverty level (which is
$15,282 for 2013, or 1273.50 per month).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title7-vol4/xml/CFR-2012-title7-vol4-sec273-9.xml

Table as to Federal proverty Levels:
http://www.
familiesusa.org/resources/tools-for-advocates/guides/federal-poverty-guidelines.html

The Grant for a Single Person is just $200 a month

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/foradults/supplementalnutritionassistanceprogram/

There is a formula that is used to reduce the Food Stamp grant (Which I will NOT even try to go into here), based on other income, the amount of food Stamps drops to about $10-20 a month for someone who is on SSI. Thus my point people over Age 66 (The retirement age in 2013) get very little food stamps. Children and adults under age 66 are the main recipients of food stamps.

[jtuck004]

65. That's all very interesting, and true, and I'm not sure what it has to do with this.

Who gets food stamps, "76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits." wasn't the discussion.

I think you are suggesting that since older folks don't get as much in food stamps that this would not be the case? Age has relatively little to do with voting behavior (some, of course) when measured against economic status and education.

The conjecture was that if they 'pubs take money away from food stamps it will motivate people to vote. Simple fact is, born out by decades of voting, the lower the income and less education a person\family unit has, the less likely they are to vote. That is indisputable fact.

It was that way before food stamps, and it is that way with food stamps. So they could end food stamps entirely, and among those with less income and education it would likely not change their voting behavior at all. At least it hasn't had much effect in the past hundred years or so of recorded information on voting.

The people one needs to change are those that vote, and that set of people is made up of people outside of poverty and with at least a high school or greater educational attainment. Most of them are not on food stamps, so it is doubtful that it would change anyone's mind, or motivate people to vote who ordinarily don't. One could mount an effort to encourage them to vote, but virtually no one will fund it.

And anyone who has ever worked for a winning campaign knows it.

[PDJane]

9. Start by making the minimum wage about $15.00, so that people could live on it.

That's where most of the food stamps go.

[mountain grammy]

11. exactly!!

[cstanleytech]

27. I dont believe thats the answer.

Yes workers should be earning more however as things are alot of companies especially those in retail and the service industry have zero interest in actually paying their workers a living wage and if the minimum wage is hiked you can bet they will pay for it by just hiking prices further to keep their profits the same so in the end we all lose out still.
No, whats really needed to get companies motivated to pay their workers better is a new payroll tax (whos money should be used to fund the food stamp program and other social programs that help people looking for work or who are poor ) that charges the company a higher amount based on a formula that takes into consideration what its highest and lowest earner for the company make.
The bigger the gap the higher the payroll tax that the company has to pay out of its own pocket, the lower the gap the lower the amount the company has to pay.
That way the company has to actually pay all its employees a fair wage and if they decided not to.........well they will still end up paying it to them just in a different way.

[DebJ]

34. I like that idea! n/t

[bread_and_roses]

48. Of course raising Minimum wage is part of the solution

Your argument about raising prices is one that has been used by Chamber Commerce, etc., every time a raise is proposed. Somehow, the dire predictions never come to pass. Unfortunately, the raises are always too paltry to make much difference for many workers - but even so, they make some difference for low-wage workers and raise the bar for others.

[cstanleytech]

50. Thats because they probably would do that but even if they didnt

do that the gap in pay will continue to grow even if minimum wage is increased so its time imo to look for alternatives to reduce the gap and this is one of those alternatives.

[The Magistrate]

52. My View On This, Sir

Is that companies should be assessed a tax equal to the amount of public benefits ( food stamps, Medicaid, etc. ) their employees are eligible for, plus a penalty charge of ten percent of that total.

As things stand now, in many cases public assistance is simply a subsidy given to employers who pay cut-throat wages, which goes directly to their private profit.

[Doctor_J]

57. that's a good one too

your solution and cstan's both sound workable.

[Daniel537]

3. Fascist assholes.

With the record profits the 1% is making nowadays, just the idea of cutting food assistance for the most vulnerable in our society should be enough to sicken anyone with a heart. Nothing the GOP does surprises me anymore.

[CountAllVotes]

42. So right

Fascist asswholes at best!

Let them eat cake? What 'effin cake? Where is it? You can't buy an 'effin cake for $13.00 I don't believe and yes, that is what my friend trying to live on $600.00 a month got last week in food stamps to live on for an entire week. Big damn deal and yep, that's going to break the back of some rich idiot in the upper 1% or some politician that doesn't even know what food stamps are.

So much for the meek inheriting the earth huh?

Disgusting as best indeed!!!

[Cryptoad]

5. I have forgotten,,,,,

what is the last GOP legislation to help the Poor folks????

[Snake Plissken]

7. If there's no bread let them eat cake

There's no end to what they'll take

[DRoseDARs]

14. And if they can afford cake, then they don't need food stamps...

Definitive proof we can cut even MORE!



Because you KNOW these motherfuckers would stoop that low.

[BlueJazz]

10. So the sons-a-bitches create a world where lots of people who can't find work..

....HAVE to receive Food Stamps...then want to cut the stamps and try to force these same people to find work.,,,at chicken-shit wages.

This American/Australian would like to say what he would like to do to half of the House but can't because it would be barbaric.
God..I hate to see so many unhappy people.

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Christian Conservatives Showing Their Compassion for the Poor Yet Again

Real hypocrisy barely needs to be outlined.

Are they Robber Barons? Corporate Raiders?
Survival-of-the-Fittest Social Darwinists?

All the same, from the Gilded Age to the 2013 TeaBaggers.

[Snake Plissken]

16. These Christian Conservatives keep talking about Jesus coming back

If Jesus did come back, why on earth would these Christian Conservatives think he would come to see them?

So they could shoot him? Or if he's lucky, just deported him back to Heaven.

[DebJ]

35. ROFL omg thanks n/t

[classykaren]

45. Great comment

Thanks

[L0oniX]

15. Yes ...attack the poor and hungry. G0d bless Ameddicca. USA USA USA

Didn't it used to be this?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

"The New Colossus" is a sonnet by American poet Emma Lazarus (1849–87), written in 1883. In 1903, the poem was engraved on a bronze plaque and mounted inside the lower level of the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty.



American exceptionalism my ass!

[Snake Plissken]

17. The GOP added a line to that poem

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

So I can fuck them out of every last cent they still have"

[rocktivity]

19. There are people on food stamps that are working

they just aren't earning enough money.


rocktivity

[grantcart]

29. That of course is the great irony of the story.

Tens of millions of hard working people need food stamps so that they can continue to work hard.


Will they then have to prove that they hungry?

[onehandle]

21. Veto that hunk of shit. nt

[madrchsod]

22. i`m still on food stamps or snap as the kids now days call it.

good thing i don't eat a lot...

[Archae]

23. How about cutting the farm subsidies?

Oops, congressmen and women get that money, so that's different...

[Owl]

60. I'm all for cutting that also... will it ever happen?

[Ford_Prefect]

24. When other countries try to starve significant populations to death we call it GENOCIDE.

That definition still fits and is what we are seeing as a political calculation. Plenty of poor people vote but they don't spend money on it like the corporate donors do. That is where the 1% owns the vote on this and many other things.

[peacebird]

25. Since they want to place work rqmts on Food aid, one supposes they will get to work creating JOBS?

Because right now the unemployment rate is over 7.3%, not counting those discouraged workers who have droped off the official roles....
Oh, and of course they are planning to address the minimum wage, making it a living wage so that walmart workers & their counterparts will be able to survive without food stamps, right?

[DJ13]

38. We need work requirements on Congress so they can prove they deserve to be paid

[sakabatou]

26. Because making the rich richer is what they really want

They don't give a shit about the poor.

[blkmusclmachine]

28. .

.

[Rhiannon12866]

30. Cutting food stamps when even more people are suffering than ever before?!

The very least we can do is feed this nation's hungry, many of whom are workers and young children. Unforgivable.

[TalkingDog]

31. Oh, yay. State sanctioned slavery.

n/t

[SaveAmerica]

32. They are trying really hard to keep this picture from becoming reality

[Lenomsky]

33. Progress at last ..

so if you want to eat you work .. you do damn well what you're told or no dinner!

[Safetykitten]

36. And guess where they will work to fulfill the requirement. Go ahead, guess.

[DebJ]

37. Here are some great charts and stats on the SNAP program

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3744

"Most SNAP participants are either not expected to work or are working. In a typical month of 2011, 68 percent of SNAP recipients were not expected to work because they were children, elderly, disabled, or were caring for a disabled family member in their home or for a child under 6 where another household member was working. Children under the age of 18 constitute nearly half (45 percent) of all SNAP participants."

[99th_Monkey]

39. The House has become a useless Clown Car, careening dangerously out of control. nt

[handmade34]

51. +1

seriously!

[jtuck004]

40. No Democrat would ever sign off on a piece of shit like this. Wouldn't stoop that low.

76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person.

These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.

SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]

The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]

...

More:

http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx#

[CountAllVotes]

41. Maybe if so many weren't so damn broke

There would be no need for food stamps!

No COLA's worth two-hoots for a long long time now.

Interest rates stuck at zero % = people with no disposable income and forced into poverty.

Good damn job there awholes in Washington, D.C. and thanks a lot for giving my good friend a whopping $13.00 a week to live on!

[blackspade]

43. Fuck these Teahadist assholes

the GOP sucks.

[sulphurdunn]

44. "Are there no prisons...

are there no work houses...?" Sadly, in real life, Scrooge is rarely redeemed.

[ReRe]

46. They can pass all the shit-for-legislation they want...

...PO won't sign it.

[Brigid]

47. Why is there an ad for fancy bathroom fixtures . . .

On the bottom of a thread about food stamps?

Anyway, the best way to cut food stamps is to CREATE JOBS THAT PAY ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO FEED THEMSELVES!! Why is that so hard for these GOP idiots to understand??

[tclambert]

49. But try to take a penny from a CEO . . .

and all sorts of outrage will bloom on Fox News and talk radio.

[workinclasszero]

54. Yes we must allow american kids to starve so we can pay for our worldwide military empire

And that way the little beggars will be grateful to their corporate masters for their generous minimum wages/zero health care and other benefits, mcjobs.

[Sunlei]

55. yeah and that 4 bill.++ cut will go to the new board of directors to admin. who works and where.

[Doctor_J]

56. Since most of the new jobs pay so little as to qualify a person for food stamps anyway,

what's the point except to appease the Hate Radio crowd?

[Skittles]

62. I'd say a good portion of the hate radio crowd receives food stamps

[feathateathn]

58. Universal wage

Universal Wage

eliminates the need for food stamps and all other transfer programs

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. Isn't this "involuntary servitude" prohibited by the 13th Amendment?

[Skittles]

61. why don't they work on WHY WE ARE STILL IN AFGHANISTAN

if they are so hell-bent on saving money? F***ers

[unhappycamper]

63. Here's the problem in one easy picture:

Food & Agriculture: 1%
Military: 57%

[askeptic]

64. Punish the victim!

The congress and it laissez fair capitalism helped caus the financial bubble and subsequent meltdown. It has utterly failed at putting together any kind of effective jobs program, so now we will blame the victims of this mess.

Hey! It's your fault there are no jobs out there!

Despicable!