Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Friday, August 2, 2013 6:59 pm

Quote of the day, welfare-cuts edition

Filed under: Evil,I want my country back. — Lex @ 6:59 pm
Tags: , , ,

Steve Benen at the Maddow Blog, on  House GOP plans to double cuts in food stamps to $40 billion and impose new eligibility and drug-testing requirements for recipients:

If Ayn Rand were alive today, this is the sort of bill that would lead her to say, “Aren’t you guys overdoing it a bit?”

The original version of the bill would have cut $20 billion from food stamps, which is bad enough. But apparently the House GOP believes that poor people in America aren’t suffering enough, that they must endure even more pain. And then the whole drug-testing thing, which was actually tried in Florida and ended up costing more than it saved.

These people are psychopaths, and they must be stopped.


  1. […] Lex points out the counterproductivity of current food stamp […]

    Pingback by Potpourri: Boggle vs. Scrabble, the Bible, SNL meets EPL | Mostly Modern Media — Saturday, August 3, 2013 11:36 am @ 11:36 am

  2. Anyone. it seems, who questions the merits of a government program or points out fraud/waste/abuse in an entitlement is labled as heartless and insane by the liberal moralists

    Okay..would you settle for a 16 billion cut in SNAP?

    Don’t you worry the foxes are guarding the henhouse

    The food stamp program was originally intended to support the poorest 2% of Americans. Today around 14% of Americans receive food stamps. The program is one of the government’s fastest growing. Senator Jeff Sessions proposed amendments to the Farm Bill to curb food stamp abuses, but liberals in the Senate defeated his attempt at reform. Below is a letter from Sen. Sessions on the defeat of his proposal

    ” It is disappointing that the Senate majority rejected modest attempts to reform the single largest growing major expense in the federal budget. Food stamp spending has quadrupled since 2001, and has doubled since 2008. The food stamp budget now makes up 80 percent of the farm bill and will remain at more than double pre-recession levels for the next ten years. It is one of nearly 80 overlapping federal welfare programs providing low-income support, including 17 for nutrition. An individual on food stamps may receive as much as $25,000 in low-income support for their household. My amendments would have made two modest but critical reforms to the food stamp program: preventing states from waiving eligibility requirements, and eliminating bonus pay provided to states for deliberately swelling the rolls. It is stunning that the Democrat majority—at a time when we are borrowing forty cents of every dollar we spend—would object to providing even this small degree of financial accountability. It is, however, an encouraging sign of progress that this amendment, unlike last year, did receive bipartisan support and a larger vote total. This is not only a financial issue but a moral issue. One in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Under this bill, no fewer than 1 in 9 Americans will be on food stamps at any point in the next ten years. Left unattended, the safety net can turn into a restraint. Welfare support can, over time, become damaging to both the Treasury and the recipient. Those administering the program seem determined to place the largest number of people possible on welfare support. Is not a better goal to see how many Americans we can help achieve financial independence?—Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) “

    Comment by Fred Gregrory — Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:00 pm @ 3:00 pm

  3. If you’re so worried about waste, Fred, why don’t you start with the military and the security-industrial complex? As Willie Sutton observed, that’s where the money is. Once we fix that, we can go after waste elsewhere. But more importantly, these cuts aren’t to eliminate waste, they’re to kick poor people whose ability to vote is being increasingly hampered in many states, including our own. Finally, I shouldn’t wonder that the percentage of people who get SNAP help has risen since its creation given that more people have been unemployed for longer right now than at any time since the Great Depression. We know how to fix that, but Congressional Republicans remain adamantly opposed, out of economic ignorance, a desire not to make Obama look good (as if Congress’s approval rating, currently 7%, wouldn’t also skyrocket if it did the right thing), or both.

    Comment by Lex — Saturday, August 3, 2013 3:40 pm @ 3:40 pm

  4. Excuse-Moi ! For the first two years of his first term Obama had majorities in the house and senate. He got his stimulus package.
    Point your finger elsewhere

    So, where’s that 5% unemployment rate Obama promised by now?

    “This is important: Obama economists assumed the unemployment rate would return to 5% even without a stunning collapse in labor force participation. Why? Government stimulus would reignite the private economy, causing a return to 4% GDP growth or higher, growth not seen since the late 1990s.

    •In August 2009, the White House predicted GDP would rise 4.3% in 2011, followed by 4.3% growth in 2012 and 2013, too.

    •In its 2010 forecast, the White House said it was looking for 3.5% GDP growth in 2012, followed by 4.4% in 2013.

    •In its 2011 forecast, the White House predicted 3.1% growth in 2011, 4.0% in 2012, and 4.5% in 2013.

    In fact, the economy has only grown at half that pace during the recovery; even slower over the past year.

    And once you take that labor force decline into account, adjusted for the aging of the US population, the “real” unemployment rate is between 9% and 10% while the combined unemployment/underemployment number is 14.0%. As a recent report from the Century Foundation calculates it, almost the entire decline in the unemployment rate during this recovery was because of declining labor force participation rather than increased labor demand.

    Yes, the Great Recession was worse than Team Obama knew back in 2009. And other bad stuffed happened later, like the euro crisis. (Not to mention some good stuff like the Bernanke Fed’s unprecedented monetary easing.) Through it all, however, the White House stayed optimistic, even knowing the history of post-financial crisis recoveries. And there is no sign yet that Obama is reevaluating the notion that higher taxes and more government investment is the path to American prosperity, or acknowledging that uncertainty about Obamacare might be slowing the creation of full-time jobs.

    Now, maybe the smart guys on Wall Street are right, and finally the economy is ready to really accelerate. Deutsche Bank, for instance, sees the unemployment rate falling to 5.6% by the first quarter of 2016 (including a less active labor force). If so, you can thank a) the Fed and b) the natural resilience of the entrepreneurial US economy. A job market recovery? Obamanomics never did build that.”

    Comment by Fred Gregrory — Saturday, August 3, 2013 4:16 pm @ 4:16 pm

    • Fred, if the stimulus package had been as big as economists wanted and as heavily weighted toward direct spending rather than tax cuts, we’d be in much better shape. Instead, Obama got what Congressional Republicans would give him, and he didn’t have a majority until Al Franken was finally seated, only to have Scott Brown replace Ted Kennedy shortly after.

      Comment by Lex — Saturday, August 3, 2013 11:24 pm @ 11:24 pm

  5. If someone can’t understand why SNAP participation might be double its 2008 level, there’s probably no talking to him.

    By the way, if I cut and paste nearly intact articles, can I call that a comment too?

    Comment by Andrew Brod — Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:38 pm @ 10:38 pm

  6. Brod,

    The link was there for all with half a brain but I C& Peed a portion for Maroons. Eat me

    Comment by Fred Gregrory — Sunday, August 4, 2013 1:19 am @ 1:19 am

  7. Eat me? That’s sooo rude. Who would say suchathing?

    Comment by Roch Smith, Jr. — Thursday, August 8, 2013 8:33 am @ 8:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: