Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 113

Thread: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

  1. #81
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    from the article:



    the article cited in the OP isn't exactly clear on details, but the above seems to suggest supplementation for already existing training programs would be cut, if single mothers were not required to engage in such to receive assistance.

    From what's in the OP, I really find it hard to take real issue with either policy, but certainly leave open the possibility that the actual language of the legislation is more problematic
    These waiver rollbacks for the states are designed to further limit the number of people who receive or need to enroll, it is extremist bagger nonsense during a continuing extreme tight job market, it is literally an attempt to take food away from folks who by no fault of there own are caught in this lousy recovery. Instead of working to get jobs programs up and running, the House baggers think that increasing the pressure on those already not earning enough when the jobs are not there is a way to stimulate the economy.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  2. #82
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,909

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    from the article:



    the article cited in the OP isn't exactly clear on details, but the above seems to suggest supplementation for already existing training programs would be cut, if single mothers were not required to engage in such to receive assistance.

    From what's in the OP, I really find it hard to take real issue with either policy, but certainly leave open the possibility that the actual language of the legislation is more problematic
    i don't know if anyone else besides you read the entire article but i will post the rest of it:

    As reported by the House Agriculture Committee in June, the nutrition title of the farm bill already claimed about $20.5 billion in 10-year food stamp savings. The new target of about $40 billion became public Wednesday evening and was confirmed by Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), when pressed by reporters at an appearance Thursday.

    “The drafting process is ongoing. It’s being coordinated by the majority leader’s staff.” Lucas said. And Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, the panel’s ranking Democrat, said Lucas was being dragged down a path that will ultimately make it harder to enact farm legislation.

    “You will have to ask them what the hell they think they are up to but this is not going to help,” Peterson said. “I don’t see how we get a farm bill at the end of the day.

    “I don’t what they are trying to do here other than placate the Wall Street Journal and the Club for Growth and Heritage,” he added. “I’ll guarantee you this is going to make no difference to the United States Senate. They are not going to be anywhere near close to it.”

    Peterson said his great fear is that the Cantor effort will only raise the stakes on the food stamp cuts to the point where any compromise with be unacceptable to conservatives and make it harder for Democrats to step back in and help pass the final report from the House-Senate conference.

    “They have alienated so many Democrats in this process,” Peterson said. “I’m not sure they are going to want to help.”

    Lucas seemed mindful of the challenges too in his appearance before an agribusiness audience Thursday.

    “Bear in mind in the present work product, the Senate reforms save about $4 billion in their draft,” he said. “The House saves 20.5. Don’t be surprised from the CBO scores of this next product if it doesn’t save $40 billion.”

    “This may be one of those issues where the conference committee can work out what each policy really does and what the dollar effect on the budget is but where you have to have a little more guidance from on high,” he said. “That’s not passing the buck — that’s just saying it’s a tough bridge to cross to achieve consensus.”
    House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill - David Rogers - POLITICO.com

    although i am surprised why the article even brings up conference committees, because i got the impression that house republicans did not want to use conferance committees, at least when it came to the issue of creating a budget.

  3. #83
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i believe in mixed government of the founders federalist 40, ....not the stupidity of democracy
    I believe in a mixed economy, too. If there was something better than democracy I probably would agree with you.

    the census does not count citizens, it counts people, anybody
    you stated rural states, were counting people as citizens who were illegal..they are becuase thats what the constitution says to do.
    Thats right and then the states use the census to apportion districts for representation. But some of the people counted in the census are not represented in government and they either should be or they should be separated from the citizen count.


    by the way we are not a democracy, you will not find that word in our founding documents, or the constitution of any state.
    Republic simply means we're not a monarchy. We are democratic Republic because we the people elect representatives to government. We hold democratic elections and that is basically what democracy means.


    actually it does, but not by name, the 13 14 15th amendments to our constitution were written for the slaves only, as stated by the USSC in the slaughterhouse case of 1873.
    The constitution doesn't actually say "citizens" by name either....remember?


    however later it has been stated by the court it applies to all citizens.........by stating that the bill of rights now applies to the states.
    If you knew the court stated that it applies to all citizens then why would you pretend it didn't?

    the amendments removed them from slavery, due process, could not be discriminated by governments, privileges and immunities, and they could not be denied the vote because they were a slave.
    And yet, they were prevented from voting and denied their rights for almost a hundred years after those amendments were ratified. How do you explain that?

    voting under the constitution by the founders was not a right. ..it was a privilege as stated by the founders....the court later called it a right.
    Yes, we abide by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    So what exactly was your point?

  4. #84
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    I'm not sure of the exact wording of the bill, but the group of possible people effected by such a policy change would likely be much more broad than what you suggest, with some more than likely deserving the loss of assistance.
    No doubt there are a few.

    But I'm not sure how that changes the fact that you just spent 6 pages ranting about things that have no relation to the proposed legislation.

    I am always amazed at seemingly how proud you are of your ignorance: raising some red herring based on what you assume my position is doesn't address the fact that you had absolutely no idea what you were ranting about. Secondly, my views on healthcare reform likely don't reflect from the mentally-stunted caricature that you were able to work up in your head
    So now you're going to spend the next 6 pages ranting about me, is that it?

  5. #85
    King Conspiratard
    Dr. Chuckles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-14 @ 03:04 PM
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    12,895

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    i don't know if anyone else besides you read the entire article but i will post the rest of it
    Given the discussion here, I really don't think anyone did.

  6. #86
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    1)no, but it does serve the purpose of keeping people engaged with the economy.

    2)which isn't exactly a bad thing. twenty hours out of a week is hardly a demanding schedule, even for someone with a kid

    And it's not that I even agree with any policy outlined in the OP< it's just your objections up to this point seem based on nothing more than ignorance and hysterics
    People are engaged in the economy every time they have to buy something even if it's with food stamps.

    it's just your objections up to this point seem based on nothing more than ignorance and hysterics
    At least my rants were meant to address the OP... yours are just sniveling personal attacks.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Gimmesometruth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    US Southwest
    Last Seen
    09-13-17 @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,405

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Chuckles View Post
    Given the discussion here, I really don't think anyone did.
    speak for yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by trouble13 View Post
    If you wanna know why Trumpsters are ignoring you its for the same reason you ignored the KKKs complaints about Obama.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    When it comes down to it, all facts are cherry picked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    He didn't say it didn't make sense. He said it is complete nonsense.

  8. #88
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    I believe in a mixed economy, too. If there was something better than democracy I probably would agree with you.
    thats mixed government...not mixed economy........democracy is vile, and destructive........republican government is the highest form of government


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Thats right and then the states use the census to apportion districts for representation. But some of the people counted in the census are not represented in government and they either should be or they should be separated from the citizen count.
    the census is for the federal government, for representation of the house and its 435 members.

    how can you separate people?.....the constitution states all free people will be counted, it does not say citizen...every person has to be counted.



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Republic simply means we're not a monarchy. We are democratic Republic because we the people elect representatives to government. We hold democratic elections and that is basically what democracy means.
    no, you have been lied to.

    read the founding fathers their letters, federalist papers and the constitution itself

    democracy is a democratic form of government, the u.s. has a republican form of government article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution.

    read federalist 10 where Madison states we have republican government.

    read federalist 39 in titled "Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles".........does it say democratic principles?.........no!

    John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

    the USSR held elections, for Stalin, did that make them a democracy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The constitution doesn't actually say "citizens" by name either....remember?

    have you not read the constitution at all....the constitution says Citizens many times...............but it says free people for the census


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    If you knew the court stated that it applies to all citizens then why would you pretend it didn't?
    becuase when it was originally written it on the issue of slaves, it was only decades later the court changed it, i brought it up becuase you talked about the constitution not addressing the slave issue, and it does.

    twice once under the founders to end importation on slaves in 1808, and the 14th amendment for slaves.




    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    And yet, they were prevented from voting and denied their rights for almost a hundred years after those amendments were ratified. How do you explain that?
    what are you going to tell me blacks could not vote until 1970?



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Yes, we abide by the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    So what exactly was your point?
    that voting was not a right, the 15th amendment to the constitution states that a citizens cannot denied be right to a vote becuase that person was a slave, it grants no voting right.

    you will not see a voting right listed in the constitution at all. that is a court interpretation, not the constitution.

    early american court cases on voting, state...if you dont pay taxes, you dont vote, it says nothing of woman, or blacks, the founders wanted people who had a stake in the union to vote.
    Last edited by Master PO; 08-04-13 at 03:34 PM.

  9. #89
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:31 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,460

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    thats mixed government...not mixed economy........democracy is vile, and destructive........republican government is the highest form of government.
    Republic simply means "no monarchy". To have a Republican government you still have some form of government besides "no monarchy". The forefathers chose democracy. Thomas Jefferson even called his political party the Democratic-Republican party to make the point....

    "...The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System.....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...publican_Party

    In opposition to the Democratic-Republican was the Federalist Party. Their platform was to have a large powerful, nationalist, central government, along with a national bank, tariffs and good relations with Britain...but they still needed democracy to get elected. Their party became obsolete after the Civil War....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

    So what kind of government do you espouse to replace democracy, ernest? Cuz it sure sounds like you would prefer a monarchy and not a republic.

    the census is for the federal government, for representation of the house and its 435 members.
    how can you separate people? .....the constitution states all free people will be counted, it does not say citizen...every person has to be counted.
    You said yourself that a court stated it applies to all citizens. But illegal immigrants are not citizens and yet they are counted in the US census as free persons. But only citizens can vote and yet the states are counting all "free persons" including illegal immigrants as citizens and gaining seats they don't deserve. Why don't you read the article I posted and save us both the frustration of your circular reasoning.


    no, you have been lied to. democracy is a democratic form of government, the u.s. has a republican form of government article 4 section 4 of the u.s. constitution.

    read federalist 10 where Madison states we have republican government.

    read federalist 39 in titled "Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles".........does it say democratic principles?.........no!
    Quit quibbling and go look up the definition of a Republic. You're just fooling yourself and wasting everyones time, if you don't.

    John Adams wrote in 1806: "I once thought our Constitution was quasi or mixed government, but they have now made it, to all intents and purposes, in virtue, in spirit, and in effect, a democracy. We are left without resources but in our prayers and tears, and have nothing that we can do or say, but the Lord have mercy on us."

    the USSR held elections, for Stalin, did that make them a democracy?
    John Adams was a big government Federalist..but he was "democratically elected" ....because we're not a monarchy, we're a republic. Any country that does not have a ruling monarchy including the USSR can be called a republic.

    have you not read the constitution at all....the constitution says Citizens many times...............but it says free people for the census
    Don't you understand the difference between an illegal immigrant and a citizen? An illegal immigrant is still a "free person", but they are not citizens. And yet the states are counting them as "citizens" to get more representation in congress than they deserve.

    ...becuase when it was originally written it on the issue of slaves, it was only decades later the court changed it, i brought it up becuase you talked about the constitution not addressing the slave issue, and it does.
    Knock it off. I never said the constitution doesn't address the slave issue. I said the constitution does not have the word slave written anywhere in it, which it doesn't. Instead it refers to slaves as "3/5 of a person".

    You said the census clause does not have the word "citizen" in it and then you went on to cite that the courts stated that "free persons" meant "citizens". So which is it, are illegal immigrants citizens or not? You can't have both ways.


    what are you going to tell me blacks could not vote until 1970? that voting was not a right, the 15th amendment to the constitution states that a citizens cannot denied be right to a vote becuase that person was a slave, it grants no voting right.
    Uh, the 15th amendment was ratified shortley after the Civil War and several decades after the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution was written. In it, it protects the right of all citizens to vote. So are you saying that freed and former slaves aren't citizens? Really?

    The fifteenth amendment says they are....

    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1


    early american court cases on voting, state...if you dont pay taxes, you dont vote, it says nothing of woman, or blacks, the founders wanted people who had a stake in the union to vote.
    You mean the Federalist only wanted the rich plantation owners and bankers to vote? My, how things have changed...and for the better I might add.

  10. #90
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Politico: House GOP takes another cut at food stamp bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Republic simply means "no monarchy". To have a Republican government you still have some form of government besides "no monarchy". The forefathers chose democracy. Thomas Jefferson even called his political party the Democratic-Republican party to make the point....

    "...The Democratic-Republican Party was the political party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1791-93. It stood in opposition to the Federalist Party and controlled the Presidency and Congress, and most states, from 1801 to 1824, during the First Party System.....
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democr...publican_Party

    In opposition to the Democratic-Republican was the Federalist Party. Their platform was to have a large powerful, nationalist, central government, along with a national bank, tariffs and good relations with Britain...but they still needed democracy to get elected. Their party became obsolete after the Civil War....

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party

    So what kind of government do you espouse to replace democracy, ernest? Cuz it sure sounds like you would prefer a monarchy and not a republic.
    do you read the founders......democracy is no where in the founding documents, the founders hate democracy.

    democracy is the most vile form of government--james madsion

    article 4 Section. 4. of the U.S CONSTITUTION

    The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

    i want republican government, , mixed government where power is divided between the people and the states...like the founders created.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    You said yourself that a court stated it applies to all citizens. But illegal immigrants are not citizens and yet they are counted in the US census as free persons. But only citizens can vote and yet the states are counting all "free persons" including illegal immigrants as citizens and gaining seats they don't deserve. Why don't you read the article I posted and save us both the frustration of your circular reasoning.
    the constitution states all free people ,it does not say citizens, so it is the federal government counting them on the census, do i like it ......no ..but the government is dong it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Quit quibbling and go look up the definition of a Republic. You're just fooling yourself and wasting everyones time, if you don't.
    so i need to look at a dictionary? why dont you look at the federalist papers...10 and 39, and 40 , where it states we are a mixed government.


    The Federalist No. 40
    On the Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
    New York Packet
    Friday, January 18, 1788
    [James Madison]
    To the People of the State of New York:

    THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    John Adams was a big government Federalist..but he was "democratically elected" ....because we're not a monarchy, we're a republic. Any country that does not have a ruling monarchy including the USSR can be called a republic.
    wrong .........Adams was elected by the electoral college...that is not democracy.........if we were a democracy every federal position, would be directly elected...and it was not created that way, ....only the house was a direct vote of the people..not the senate or the president.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Don't you understand the difference between an illegal immigrant and a citizen? An illegal immigrant is still a "free person", but they are not citizens. And yet the states are counting them as "citizens" to get more representation in congress than they deserve.
    but the constitution states free people... it does not state citizen, so thats how its being interpreted.......why are you acting as though i am wrong..i am telling you what they are doing..thats all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Knock it off. I never said the constitution doesn't address the slave issue. I said the constitution does not have the word slave written anywhere in it, which it doesn't. Instead it refers to slaves as "3/5 of a person".
    correct.... it does not mention them by name, but the 14th was written for them...

    3/5 of a person is not a racial issue..its a tax and representation issue......the south wanted to count them as 1 person for representation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    You said the census clause does not have the word "citizen" in it and then you went on to cite that the courts stated that "free persons" meant "citizens". So which is it, are illegal immigrants citizens or not? You can't have both ways.
    no...... i said the constitution states free people in the census, and said government is counting them in the census becuase of that wording...


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    Uh, the 15th amendment was ratified shortley after the Civil War and several decades after the 3/5 person clause in the Constitution was written. In it, it protects the right of all citizens to vote. So are you saying that freed and former slaves aren't citizens? Really?
    no.......the 15th it was ratified in 1870....3/5 is in the original constitution of 1787.....no .......its say a person cannot be denied the vote becuase of a former servitude...IE.. slavery...why i told you it was ......written for black people..

    the 14th amendment made them u.s. citizens, before the civil war there are only .....state citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    The fifteenth amendment says they are....
    Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
    Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1


    Quote Originally Posted by Moot View Post
    You mean the Federalist only wanted the rich plantation owners and bankers to vote? My, how things have changed...and for the better I might add.
    wrong, ......people have gone to court in early america, just average citizens, who were denied the vote, ...but they had voted before.

    the court ruled.....if you didnt own property of pay taxes you didn't vote, the founders wanted people who have a stake in america

    one case i am stating..... is about a man who sold all of his property and was no longer paying taxes on it, the court ruled since he sold them off he no longer had a vote....until he owned land and paid taxes again.
    Last edited by Master PO; 08-04-13 at 05:33 PM.

Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •