The Food Stamp Gospel

[Revmitchell]

According to some church officials, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has launched an attack on the poor by “cutting” $40 billion from food stamps. Typically unmentioned is that these “cuts” are reductions in increases over the next 10 years in a program that costs nearly $80 billion annually.

Also unmentioned usually is that food stamp recipients have increased by 70 percent since 2008, with 47 million Americans, or about 15 percent of the nation, now getting food stamps. The “cuts” reportedly would reduce food stamp spending to about 2010 levels.

Still, the churchly rhetoric against the “cuts” has been heated. “These immoral cuts are incongruent with the shared values of our nation,” insisted Jim Wallis of Sojourners, who called them “severe.” He added: “They demonstrate the triumph of political ideology and self-interest over sound public policy and concern for the general welfare.”

Under the “cuts,” total food stamp costs for the next 10 years reputedly would be $725 billion, or 57 percent larger than the $461.7 billion of the last decade, compared to the 65 percent increase currently scheduled.

http://spectator.org/archives/2013/09/27/the-food-stamp-gospel

 

[church mouse guy]

The religious left thinks more of the belly than it does of the soul. The social justice doctrine is a leftover from the Great Depression. It is hard to think of hunger in America compared to the squalor of the third world. What the religious left should concentrate on is jobs for Americans, not handouts.

 

[Gina B]

If they'd reduce FRAUD they wouldn't need to make the cuts!
There are plenty of people who could really use them and I think it's dumb that they're cutting them, especially now. If anything, they could likely raise them.

If there are any veterans on here, you probably got your letter showing how much the tax increase decreased your checks. If you work, you possibly had your hours cut by your boss so you're not full time anymore, thanks to ObamaCare legislation. If you have kids entering college and/or turning 18 and going on their own, you're likely helping them get started and having higher expenses, which now will be including mandatory health insurance that isn't guaranteed to be affordable in every area of every state if you read the fine print of ObamaCare. If you or your dependent parents are on Medicare, you may need to start paying/helping them with more expenses since ObamaCare is partially funded with cuts to MediCare.

So cutting food stamps now? That's good? How? The majority of people in the lower middle class are likely going to be bumped down to needing to be on them very soon because they're paying more than they can for the lower income. When that happens, the middle class will take on the burden of paying for them, and when the middle class can't handle it...we should have a nice little snowball effect.

I read the story they put out in our area on food stamp cuts and the math they put out for how much they were cutting in our state and how much it meant per person. It didn't add up in the least. For how much they cut from the budget, it only should have taken a couple dollars from each person, even if they took it ALL directly from individual recipients and not out of overhead costs and such.

I think it's just a load of garbage, to be honest.

If they really wanted to save on money, they'd start with reducing fraud and reducing where food stamps can be used. (Nobody will starve if they cannot use food stamps at a convenience store/gas station, which could automatically cut down costs and cut fraud in individual counties by quite a bit!) If they really wanted to make this happen in a decent way, they could.

The way things are going, we're headed towards everyone being on welfare. Which works for some countries. Pay most of your paycheck in taxes, but get most of what you need from the government so it doesn't matter.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If they'd reduce FRAUD they wouldn't need to make the cuts!
There are plenty of people who could really use them and I think it's dumb that they're cutting them, especially now.

I have to wonder how many people actually read the articles linked in these posts before responding. Had you done so, you would have seen that it isn't a "cut" it is a decrease in the planned increase. That's not a cut, that is deciding not to spend as much more as you intended, though you are still spending more than you are now.

In fact, Rev pointed that out in his own monologue in the OP.

If anything, they could likely raise them.

If there are any veterans on here, you probably got your letter showing how much the tax increase decreased your checks.

Veterans benefits are not affected by the Great Pretender's "health care plan" because our medical benefits are free anyway.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/obamacare-news/2013/09/25/veterans-and-obamacare/

And what the heck does the idiotic and misnamed "APA" have to do with deciding to increase food stamps spending by less than originally intended?

So cutting food stamps now? That's good? How? The majority of people in the lower middle class are likely going to be bumped down to needing to be on them very soon because they're paying more than they can for the lower income.

One more time: We have spent $461.7 billion on food stamps since 2003. Over the next ten years, we are proposing to spend $750 billion on food stamps. That's not a cut, that's an increase. It just isn't as big an increase ($40 billion reduction) as originally proposed. Instead of a 78% increase over the last ten years, it's "only" a 62% increase. You are whining about a "cut" that is nonexistent. You really need to pay attention here.

Your whole "rant" was a giant waste of space and a needless irritation of electrons.