The Meaning Of Anything Is Its Outcome

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...3423ae-1a4f-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html

EAT SHIT AND DIE, LIBS

 

[RobDownSouth]

^^^^This little piggie cried "Derp derp derp", all the way home.

Keep on blamin' everything that's gone wrong in your life on libruls.

It's soooo much easier than accepting personal responsibility for your own actions.

 

[koalabear]

^^^^This little piggie cried "Derp derp derp", all the way home.

Keep on blamin' everything that's gone wrong in your life on libruls.

It's soooo much easier than accepting personal responsibility for your own actions.

You weigh how much?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

You weigh how much?

ROBs fluent with Pig Latin, yuh know.

 

[dan_c00000]

It's simple: republitards harm Americans

House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program

Photo

Thu, Aug 1 2013

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans plan to seek a $40 billion cut in food stamps for the poor, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, double the amount previously sought by conservatives.

The plan was quickly condemned by Democrats.

Chairman Frank Lucas said the legislation on food stamps, formally named Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), would be the second part of any talks with the Senate on a new U.S. farm law costing $100 billion a year.

Food stamps, the largest U.S. anti-hunger program, are the pivotal issue for the farm bill. One in seven Americans received food stamps at latest count.

Republicans say the program, whose enrollment soared after the 2008-09 recession, is unbearably expensive at $78 billion a year. Democrats such as Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts say food stamps mitigate hunger in a still-weak economy.

Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, told lobbyists in a speech that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion. The provisions would include drug tests of applicants and tougher work rules, Lucas indicated.

The House would vote on food stamps before opening negotiations with the Senate, probably in September, on a final version of the farm bill. Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said time was running short to enact a bill before the current law expires on September 30.

"It makes no sense to see continued political gamesmanship," said Stabenow. She said the $40 billion package would appease Tea Party Republicans but never become law. "I believe it's an effort to stop a farm bill from being passed."

Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the Democratic leader on the House Agriculture Committee, said the deeper cuts and "poison pill nutrition amendments" sought by Republicans "effectively kills any hopes" for a long-term farm bill.

On June 20, the House defeated a farm bill that included $20 billion in food stamp cuts over 10 years, the deepest cuts in a generation, primarily because it was not enough to satisfy conservatives. Some 62 Republicans voted against the bill.

"We'll see if they change their minds," said Lucas when asked if $40 billion could win enough support to pass. All but two dozen Democrats voted against $20 billion in cuts.

The House passed a farm bill on a party-line vote on July 11 that was limited to agricultural support programs and left out food stamps altogether. The two elements are typically twinned, as they were in the Senate version that was passed in June.

Lucas said staff-level work toward reconciling the two chambers' bills would continue during the August recess - "pre-conferencing" before formal negotiations commence.

"I think we'll make great progress," he said.

The Senate bill called for $4 billion in cuts to the food stamp program. Because of the huge difference between the two versions, "this may be one of those issues that ultimately needs a little guidance from on high," Lucas said, referring to Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

One of the food stamp reforms sought by Republicans would require recipients to work or enroll in a job-training class. Sponsor Steve Southerland of Florida said "we have done a disservice" if people do not move into the workforce.

Southerland's amendment would disqualify people who cannot find work during times of high unemployment and does not provide money for training programs, said the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a think-tank.

The center said many food stamp families hold jobs and that able-bodied adults without young children are limited to three months of benefits in 36 months if they do not have a job.

Food stamp costs will fall in November with expiration of a temporary, 13 percent increase that was part of the 2009 economic stimulus package. Outlays would drop by $5 billion in fiscal 2014. For a family of four, benefits would drop by $36 a month.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott, Editing by Ros Krasny and Ken Wills)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It's simple: republitards harm Americans

House Republicans to push $40 billion cut to food stamp program

Photo

Thu, Aug 1 2013

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - House Republicans plan to seek a $40 billion cut in food stamps for the poor, the head of the House Agriculture Committee said on Thursday, double the amount previously sought by conservatives.

The plan was quickly condemned by Democrats.

Chairman Frank Lucas said the legislation on food stamps, formally named Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), would be the second part of any talks with the Senate on a new U.S. farm law costing $100 billion a year.

Food stamps, the largest U.S. anti-hunger program, are the pivotal issue for the farm bill. One in seven Americans received food stamps at latest count.

Republicans say the program, whose enrollment soared after the 2008-09 recession, is unbearably expensive at $78 billion a year. Democrats such as Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts say food stamps mitigate hunger in a still-weak economy.

Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican, told lobbyists in a speech that a Republican working group agreed on cuts expected to total $40 billion. The provisions would include drug tests of applicants and tougher work rules, Lucas indicated.

The House would vote on food stamps before opening negotiations with the Senate, probably in September, on a final version of the farm bill. Senate Agriculture chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, said time was running short to enact a bill before the current law expires on September 30.

"It makes no sense to see continued political gamesmanship," said Stabenow. She said the $40 billion package would appease Tea Party Republicans but never become law. "I believe it's an effort to stop a farm bill from being passed."

Rep. Collin Peterson of Minnesota, the Democratic leader on the House Agriculture Committee, said the deeper cuts and "poison pill nutrition amendments" sought by Republicans "effectively kills any hopes" for a long-term farm bill.

On June 20, the House defeated a farm bill that included $20 billion in food stamp cuts over 10 years, the deepest cuts in a generation, primarily because it was not enough to satisfy conservatives. Some 62 Republicans voted against the bill.

"We'll see if they change their minds," said Lucas when asked if $40 billion could win enough support to pass. All but two dozen Democrats voted against $20 billion in cuts.

The House passed a farm bill on a party-line vote on July 11 that was limited to agricultural support programs and left out food stamps altogether. The two elements are typically twinned, as they were in the Senate version that was passed in June.

Lucas said staff-level work toward reconciling the two chambers' bills would continue during the August recess - "pre-conferencing" before formal negotiations commence.

"I think we'll make great progress," he said.

The Senate bill called for $4 billion in cuts to the food stamp program. Because of the huge difference between the two versions, "this may be one of those issues that ultimately needs a little guidance from on high," Lucas said, referring to Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader.

One of the food stamp reforms sought by Republicans would require recipients to work or enroll in a job-training class. Sponsor Steve Southerland of Florida said "we have done a disservice" if people do not move into the workforce.

Southerland's amendment would disqualify people who cannot find work during times of high unemployment and does not provide money for training programs, said the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a think-tank.

The center said many food stamp families hold jobs and that able-bodied adults without young children are limited to three months of benefits in 36 months if they do not have a job.

Food stamp costs will fall in November with expiration of a temporary, 13 percent increase that was part of the 2009 economic stimulus package. Outlays would drop by $5 billion in fiscal 2014. For a family of four, benefits would drop by $36 a month.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott, Editing by Ros Krasny and Ken Wills)

Translation: REPUBLICANS PLAN TO CUT THE BILLIONS FOOD STAMPS PAYS FOR COKES AND PEPSIS AND DELI ITEMS AND CAKES AND DONUTS.

YUH CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, MICHELLE; YOU CANT BITCH ABOUT FAT KIDS AND SCREAM BABY-KILLER WHEN WE CUT OFF MONEY FOR THE TWINKIES.

 

[dan_c00000]

Translation: REPUBLICANS PLAN TO CUT THE BILLIONS FOOD STAMPS PAYS FOR COKES AND PEPSIS AND DELI ITEMS AND CAKES AND DONUTS.

YUH CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, MICHELLE; YOU CANT BITCH ABOUT FAT KIDS AND SCREAM BABY-KILLER WHEN WE CUT OFF MONEY FOR THE TWINKIES.

You don't have to shout it. We know you're a racist.

 

[dan_c00000]

Republicans Try to Cut Food Stamps as 15% of U.S. Households Face Hunger

By Jordan Weissmann


Congress is back in Washington, meaning that the House of Representatives will soon be able to resume its cherished function in our democracy: casting symbolic votes to slash federal spending on the poor. In particular, Majority Leader Eric Cantor is pushing a Republican plan to cleave at least $40 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program—aka food stamps—over the next ten years, a reduction the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says would push some 4 to 6 million Americans off its rolls.

As The New York Times noted in a weekend editorial, the GOP is making this crusade at a time when some 14.5 percent of U.S. households are having trouble putting meals on the table due to their finances. That's according to a new report this month from the Department of Agriculture, which found the rate of food insecurity last year was essentially unchanged from 2011. About 5.7 percent of households suffered from "very low food security," meaning among other things that they were actually forced to cut portion sizes or entire meals for lack of cash.



Households dealing with food insecurity don't necessarily suffer day in and day out. Rather, they might be dealing with these issues intermittently, or a few days out of every month.

But the bottom line is that some 49 million Americans live in a situation where getting fed isn't necessarily a guarantee.

There are just two observations I'd like to make here. First, it's notable that, much like the poverty rate, the hunger quotient in this country has barely budged since the economy supposedly began to heal (at least so far as the government's most up-to-date statistics can tell us). Much has been made about how the benefits of the recovery have gone disproportionately to top earners. But this is also a reminder that, for the least fortunate strata of the country, there hasn't really be a recovery to speak of at all.

Second: This is the state of hunger in the United States with the food stamp program in tact. Already, Washington doesn't do enough to totally mitigate the problem (remember, in 2012, the maximum benefit for a family of three worked out to $5.75 per person per day.) The USDA estimates that about half of the households that received federal nutrition assistance still suffered some amount of food insecurity. And yet, one of our major political parties wants to yank the dinner plate away from 6 million more Americans.

But hey, at least there's still plenty of money in the budget to doll out to wealthy farmers.

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ps-as-15-of-us-households-face-hunger/279465/

 

[RobDownSouth]

Translation: REPUBLICANS PLAN TO CUT THE BILLIONS FOOD STAMPS PAYS FOR COKES AND PEPSIS AND DELI ITEMS AND CAKES AND DONUTS.

YUH CANT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS, MICHELLE; YOU CANT BITCH ABOUT FAT KIDS AND SCREAM BABY-KILLER WHEN WE CUT OFF MONEY FOR THE TWINKIES.

How much money do you get from Uncle Sam each month, Wilford?

Hmmm?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

How much money do you get from Uncle Sam each month, Wilford?

Hmmm?

Obama promised me I'd only get money from you and Merc and Zumi and Sonny and UL.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Obama promised me I'd only get money from you and Merc and Zumi and Sonny and UL.

Can't answer a simple question, can you coward?

 

[koalabear]

I am a coward?

We know Fatty.

 

[dan_c00000]

Can't answer a simple question, can you coward?

The answer is "all of it". I'd call him a 13 year old child but he's clearly and old bugger.

 

[Ishmael]

Hmm, the food stamp program is rife with fraud and abuse. And here we have Ryan proposing a $40 million reduction over the next ten years. Oh, the inhumanity of it all.

It's beside the fact that the food stamp program is currently funded to the tune of $80 billion ($78 billion to be precise) a year. So Ryan's reductions represent a mere 5% of outlays. Excuse me if I fail to hyper-ventilate.

Ishmael

Edited to add that the details call for a 17% cut over the ten year period. Still no crocodile tears here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Can't answer a simple question, can you coward?

Are you on Food Stamps?

 

[Liar]

Hmm, the food stamp program is rife with fraud and abuse. And here we have Ryan proposing a $40 million reduction over the next ten years. Oh, the inhumanity of it all.

It's beside the fact that the food stamp program is currently funded to the tune of $80 billion ($78 billion to be precise) a year. So Ryan's reductions represent a mere 5% of outlays. Excuse me if I fail to hyper-ventilate.

Ishmael

Edited to add that the details call for a 17% cut over the ten year period. Still no crocodile tears here.

If the disease is fraud and abuse, how is a cut the cure?

Oh, and you're off by a pretty important letter in the first paragraph. (No biggie,just a pet peeve.)

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If the disease is fraud and abuse, how is a cut the cure?

Oh, and you're off by a pretty important letter in the first paragraph. (No biggie,just a pet peeve.)

Dear? Look at me and pay attention. That's better.

They want to eliminate millions for snacks and sugar drinks. That is, empty calories that aid obesity and diabetes.

Now put the soap box back in the closet.

 

[renard_ruse]

You weigh how much?

And the sad part is none of it is in his brain, just in his fat flatulent ass.

 

[Liar]

Dear? Look at me and pay attention. That's better.

If I think you're worth paying attention to, I'll ask my questions in replies to your posts. But dadaistic quips pretending to be clever is not exactly as gripping as you seem to believe...

They want to eliminate millions for snacks and sugar drinks. That is, empty calories that aid obesity and diabetes.

...especially since you prove you completely missed the point. I'll rephrase: How do they know that they're eliminating the millions that goes to snacks and sugar drinks? If they want to eliminate people buying the bad stuff with welfare money, they make it so people can't buy the bad stuff with welfare money. I hate the word "duh", but... duh.

Now put the soap box back in the closet.

What soap box? You're the clown with the all caps.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Are you on Food Stamps?

I'm not on Food Stamps, or any other government assistance program.

Are you?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If I think you're worth paying attention to, I'll ask my questions in replies to your posts. But dadaistic quips pretending to be clever is not exactly as gripping as you seem to believe...

...especially since you prove you completely missed the point. I'll rephrase: How do they know that they're eliminating the millions that goes to snacks and sugar drinks? If they want to eliminate people buying the bad stuff with welfare money, they make it so people can't buy the bad stuff with welfare money. I hate the word "duh", but... duh.
What soap box? You're the clown with the all caps.

Youre dummer than I believed.

If you qualify for food stamps, you get food stamps. Obama pays Coca-Cola about 4 billion a year for its products. Twinkies and Krispy Kreme's make a fortune, too. And the cuts will come from those items. And WAL-MART will find a way around it like they did with deli hot food...sell the broiled chicken cold.

Maybe there are more points than you see.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

We're all Greece now...

Yet why was California ever in a fiscal crisis at all?

World food prices are soaring. California has the best soils, weather, and farmers in the world. Silicon Valley hosts Apple, Google, Intel, and Facebook. The state hosts some of the nation’s largest corporations such as Wells Fargo, Chevron, Hewlett-Packard, and Safeway.

The movie industry in Hollywood, tourism from Disneyland to Yosemite, the Napa wine industry, and vast deposits of gas and oil should make California more prosperous than Switzerland. Its top five universities — Caltech, Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and USC — usually rate among the top 20 worldwide.

Yet despite what God and man have given the state, California has often squandered its inheritance. For all its costly investments in wind and solar power, California’s electricity rates are the steepest in the nation.

The tab falls most heavily not on the green elites of the affluent coastal communities, but on the poor and middle classes concentrated in the hotter and colder interior. For many in Fresno or Bakersfield, keeping the air-conditioning on when August temperatures hit 100 is a fantasy from a bygone age.

Californians pay among the highest gas prices in the country. Again, those astronomical costs seem surreal, given that the state sits atop huge untapped deposits of gas and oil.

The California paradox of having among the highest taxes and among the worst services is also echoed in state-by-state rankings of public-school test scores. California continues to place near the bottom.

Do those sky-high California gas taxes translate into superb roads? Not yet at least. Reason Foundation’s 20th annual highway report ranked California roads 47th in the nation.

In the last 20 years, 3.4 million middle- and upper-middle-class Californians have fled paradise for low- or no-tax states. In contrast, the state currently has the largest influx of residents who immigrated illegally. Although exact numbers are impossible to obtain, estimates suggest that about 3 million Latin American nationals are residing in California. Many are hardworking immigrants, but most arrive illegally, don’t speak English, and don’t have money or a high-school education.

Ensuring foreign nationals minimum parity with U.S. citizens requires huge state inputs in education, law enforcement, and health services. The 2012 census listed California as having the highest poverty level (23.5 percent) of any state in the union. A state with roughly 12 percent of the U.S. population is now home to 33 percent of the nation’s welfare recipients.

What, then, is the state’s strategy for recovery? More taxes, regulations, and government.

Apparently, officials in Sacramento assume that the state’s rich inheritance, coastal culture, and natural beauty and climate will ensure that most Californians stay put, keep innovating, and pony up far more in sales, income, and gas taxes.

The exorbitant cost of living will simply be the shakedown price of being a resident of hip Newport Beach or Palo Alto — places believed to be safe, if not immune, from the turmoil growing elsewhere in the state.

So will California recover its past glory — or go the way of Detroit?

It may do both.

Coastal greens, progressive Bay Area gays, liberal urban elites, and hip dot-com workers will probably not soon flee the temperate, scenic corridor from Berkeley to San Diego. For at least a while longer, they will be wealthy and confident enough to afford the living costs that high taxes and myriads of regulations ensure.

Yet for the strapped middle classes in the interior of the Los Angeles basin and the Central Valley, there is a perfect storm raging. They can ill afford the soaring taxes, high unemployment, costly illegal immigration, escalating crime rates, substandard roads, record power and gas prices, underwater home values, and dismal schools.

In short, the California coastal corridor still resembles Germany, while much of the interior is becoming Greece.

Victor Davis Hanson, NRO, The Myth of a California Renaissance

 

[Liar]

Youre dummer than I believed.

If you qualify for food stamps, you get food stamps. Obama pays Coca-Cola about 4 billion a year for its products. Twinkies and Krispy Kreme's make a fortune, too. And the cuts will come from those items. And WAL-MART will find a way around it like they did with deli hot food...sell the broiled chicken cold.

Maybe there are more points than you see.

So in orter words, they don't want to stop people buying the bad stuff.
You have still utterly failed to adresss the question: How is a cut gonna fix that?

 

[Ishmael]

So in orter words, they don't want to stop people buying the bad stuff.
You have still utterly failed to adresss the question: How is a cut gonna fix that?

The short answer is, "It won't" And quite frankly as bad as that particular abuse is, it's not the worst. The worst abuses are people that should have never had them to begin with along with those that are 'gaming' the system. For example, some time ago, couple weeks maybe, I was behind a guy in the check out line who srted through 4 EBT (Food Stamp cards) before selecting one. He swiped it through the machine and then whipped out his iPhone and looked up the proper PIN for that particular card.

How did this fellow come to have 4 EBT cards? Shopping for his 'harem?' Family affair perhaps? Who knows, but that he was carrying them all neatly arranged in his wallet tends to indicate that he wasn't just doing a favor for a friend.

I talked to the store director about the incident. We're friends and the subject came up in the normal flow of conversation, and he wasn't surprised in the least. Says that he and the cashiers see that and more all the time.

From what little I've seen and heard from those that are on the front lines it is the requirements, along with rigorous checks, that should be used to reduce the costs to the taxpayer, not reduction in the benefits. There are most certainly people out there that need the help, so help them and fuck the gamers.

Ishmael

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So in orter words, they don't want to stop people buying the bad stuff.
You have still utterly failed to adresss the question: How is a cut gonna fix that?

I'm sorry, you didn't get the memo from Laurel; the fee for me to respond to stupid fucking questions is now $5.

Cut out food stamps for everyone.