Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting. They don't want to reduce the number of people who need foodstamps to begin with--they just want to cut services to the one in four kids who depend on them now to keep from starving.
The memo doesn't say eliminate it says reduce the need and raise the pay. This is another scare tactic by the Left by perpetuating the fallacious argument to make people fear that their food stamps will disappear.
Simply eliminating food stamps is not what the memo said. Specifically it is a campaigning tool to point out that the Democrats have adjourned Congress with out addressing the tax code, causing taxes to rise in 2012. Specifically pointing to
"A family of four earning $50,000 per year could pay more than $2,100 in higher taxes. A single mom earning $36,000 per year could pay over $1,100 more in taxes. Married senior citizens earning $40,000 per year could pay more than $1,400 in higher taxes."
The memo outlines that if that money was to stay with the people their would be a lesser need for food stamps not Remove. It also points out that small business that may be hiring will not do so because of the additional tax.
I would also point out that the left would prefer to take the tax and distribute it as food stamps. This keeps people on food stamps dependent on them. Tax a mans pay then hand him food stamps in return. Now instead of paying other bills and budgeting his own money the government is budgeting for him. The only thing that dose is keep government controlling the people.
Hold the presses. I thought the liberals have been screaming for an end to the farm subsidy, no?
The food stamp program is part of the farm subsidy. Can't have it both ways. Is the outrage on the part of liberals manufactured hypocrisy or a misguided expression of ignorance?
Calling for an end to corporate welfare yes. The food stamp program is designed for people in need, the corporate subsidies go out even when the corporations are making record profits.
Sorry, but, there is a big difference in the two.
"With the passage of the 2007 energy bill and 2008 farm bill, Congress has managed to devise an interlocking maze of subsidies that, taken together, force taxpayers to spend billions of dollars no matter what the condition of the farm economy. First off are the so-called "direct payments" that go out to farmers and landowners even if crop prices and farm profits are setting record highs–and most such records have been set in the past few years–or even if the recipient plants no crop at all. Direct payments have averaged around $5 billion per year since 2005."
Laugh my arse off. It’s funny when people begin espousing ways to trim the federal budget when they obviously have no clue as to the major expenditures. Check out this site: The 2010 Statistical Abstract: Federal Budget--Receipts, Outlays, and Debt
The largest expenditures by the federal government are as follows:
commerce and housing credit = 758 billion
national defense = 690.3 billion
social security = 680.5 billion
medicare = 430.8 billion
health care = 353.4 billion
Add these up and you get 2,913 billion dollars, 72% of the whole governmental budget. How can we trim these to facilitate lower taxes? The obvious and only real way to reduce government expenditures in terms of social programs, is to kick the old folk off the dole…. For anyone in politics, that would be political suicide.
National defense makes sense. Yet if this is ALL we spent money on, it would be pennies out of our pockets. Well deserved too, as I doubt those of you with your internet bravado will be willing to take up the sword so to speak and defend this nation upon invasion? Would you? Are you willing to KILL to defend it? I didn't think so.
So defense is a valid spending and one that is only TRULY declared in our Constitution. Everything else is just double-speak created to drive out money from the residents to fund various individual schemes and agendas.
Get rid of it all. Get rid of all of the crap and let each community be responsible for itself. You know what will happen because of it? Well, initially it will be chaos, but over time the states and local communities would develop that which is relevant to each and every one of them. They wouldn't be going though the motions of payment and process to appeal to vague and useless broad declarations. Each and every one would build a system that is best served for that area. Voting would mean so much more as each individual in their area would have a profound effect as such and it would be tailored to the need of that area.
It is beyond stupidity to have such programs that broadly declare and brush the entire nation with generalized declarations. It does more harm than good. It will NEVER achieve its goals and in its pursuit will achieve exactly the opposite through its oppressive dictation.
Our country needs better programs for the poor. They found many welfare checks are cashed at Vegas gambling places. They are trying to put a stop to that but when you have irresponsible parents I guess not much can be done.
Isn't this mean-spirited? There's a good reason why we set up a food stamp program in the first place. Charities aren't able to fill all of the gaps. Sometimes people really do need help, and have nowhere else to turn.
Food stamps aren't going away, no worries. I do think that the system should be fixed to limit what someone can buy. I've seen people buying lobster with food stamps. Hell I can't even afford that making my own money, they shouldn't be using them for that.
Limit what one can buy, just like whats done with WIC. Less money would be needed, so either more people could be helped, or we could cut back on spending.
Gingrich went off the deep end when he was comparing Muslims building a community center to the Nazi's. He is just being his normal crazy self as of late.
At some point you have to stop spending...like it or not, sometimes that's just the way it is.
O.K. let’s cut the defense budget by 30%. Start with pulling all U.S. troops out of Europe. What do we have in Europe to defend? It's time to let the world know we are now longer playing "Super cop" any more. Let's change our defense posture to base it on protecting America from being attacked instead of providing a stabilizing military force for the rest of the world. No more aircraft carriers lets keep what we have. No more $8 billion dollar nuclear subs.
When Republicans are REALLY serious about cutting defense spending then I'll know they are serious about cutting the budget. The defense budget takes up 20% of the budget. Entitlement programs take up 14% of the federal budget.
Right now they are throwing poor people under the bus to make political points.
Food Stamps, WIC, AFDP, SSI, Free school breakfasts and lunches, Section 8, public housing, EIC -- etc.. A person can get by and never work with the right combination. It has crippled whole groups of people from having meaningful lives.
We need to keep it but there needs to be changes made to it and a lot more over sight for fraud
But how is saying we need to highlight something, equal we should do away with it?
Eventually entitlement programs are so wrapped up in bureaucratic red tape that they need to be done away with and completely reconstructed from the bottom up. One does not rebuild or remodel a house on a structurally unsound foundation. Same principal applies to bureaucratic programs.
There absolutely have to be very deep cuts to federal spending moving forward. It is not compassionate to allow the country to collapse. Prepare yourselves and plan to be prepared to provide for family members who cannot care for themselves. The road ahead is going to be kidney-jarring bumpy.
O.K. let’s cut the defense budget by 30%. Start with pulling all U.S. troops out of Europe. What do we have in Europe to defend? It's time to let the world know we are now longer playing "Super cop" any more. Let's change our defense posture to base it on protecting America from being attacked instead of providing a stabilizing military force for the rest of the world. No more aircraft carriers lets keep what we have. No more $8 billion dollar nuclear subs.
When Republicans are REALLY serious about cutting defense spending then I'll know they are serious about cutting the budget. The defense budget takes up 20% of the budget. Entitlement programs take up 14% of the federal budget.
Right now they are throwing poor people under the bus to make political points.
I agree 100%. I've long been in favor of cutting the defense budget. We spend twice what the entire rest of the world spends on our military. Why? Do we need twice the military of the entire world, when a good portion of the planets nations are our allies?
We spend 8 times what China does on their military, the next largest spender in the world on military expenses.
So I ask you, why does a Democracy spend 8 times what a Communist country does on its military industrial complex? It makes no sense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
