Trump decides that 3 million poor Americans don't need to eat

Submitted by gjohnsit on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 6:12pm

Poor people are like animals. If you feed them too much they won't want to work.
At least that appears to be the way the Republican elites think.

The Trump administration moved to end food stamp benefits for 3.1 million people, the day after the president reached a deal with Democrats to raise federal spending by tens of billions of dollars for the next two years.
The proposed rule curtailing food assistance, announced Tuesday, drew a sharp rebuke from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who called it an “act of staggering callousness.”

“This proposal perfectly showcases the Republicans’ cynical special interest agenda that gives billion-dollar handouts to big corporations and the wealthy few, and then steals from children, veterans, seniors and working families to make up the difference,” Pelosi said.

Lawd knows that there is no bigger sin than to give some healthy person free food, amirite?
It's not like Trump has ever eaten for free.
Didn't Jesus say something about making sure that the poor don't have any fish to eat?

Meanwhile the GOP assault on Obamacare continues.

A July report released by Families USA covering data from the RAND Foundation reveals how repealing the ACA would affect veterans across the nation.
According to the data, if the ACA were repealed in 2019, close to half a million veterans in the U.S. would lose all health insurance coverage by 2020.

This is almost the same number of troops deployed in Vietnam during the height of the war in 1968.

By 2026, the data shows that nearly 670,000 vets would lose all health coverage.

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/453889-federal-judge-upholds-trump...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democratic-led-house-votes-to-repeal-obamac...
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/medicaid/cms-seeks-reduce-state-reporti...

Tags:

SNAP

Vote

Comments

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 7:16pm

It's not just this

Lawd knows that there is no bigger sin than to give some healthy person free food, amirite?

What he is doing is punishing people if they get too far ahead financially. Many states have that rule already in effect which means if people need to save up money to buy a car or even something much less then they will be kicked off the program for having too many assets. Medicaid has a strict rule stating that if you have even $1.00 above $1,300 you do not qualify for it. Food stamps has this rule in Utah, but I'm not sure what they limit it to. I haven't been able to save anything so I don't worry about it. But these programs are designed to keep people in poverty. If you get ahead or too much help from others you get dinged. SSI definitely has an asset limit amount. Someone helps you with your rent, gas or electric bills then you are getting inkind support and they will adjust your monthly income.

What happened to trigger this besides Trump just being cruel is a millionaire in one of the states that don't have restrictions was able to get food stamps which the republicans glommed on to. I think huff post has this article.

But once again Trump is going around congress on matters that they are supposed to be in charge of. Hey, Nancy...you have any plans for stopping him doing that? Bueller? Maybe a sternly written letter?

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by edg on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 1:02pm

Absolutely nailed it.

@snoopydawg

"But these programs are designed to keep people in poverty." That is so true. And so sad.

Submitted by Hawkfish on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 7:40pm

Give to your local food bank

They have some economies of scale, so your donation goes a lot further.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by gulfgal98 on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 5:55am

Local food banks are being strained already

@Hawkfish In my area of NC, the local food bank serves between 20 and 25% of the population. The median household income is slightly above that of the state at large and the poverty level is slightly below that of the state at large. According to our local food bank,most of the families that they serve have at least one household member who is working. Food banks should not be forced to pick up the extra burden that is being created when the federal government cuts back on SNAP.

What our local food bank does is to supplement and bridge the gap between SNAP benefits and what lower income families can afford. For example, SNAP does not cover items such as toilet paper, toiletries, or school supplies, all of which our local food bank provides. So cutting SNAP also cuts into the efficiency of the programs that local food banks provide. Many struggle to meet the increasing demand for services due to the increasing impoverishment of the citizens of this country and the cut back in SNAP.

But there is a another reason that the cuts in SNAP are bad and that is the indirect cuts to the economy every cut in SNAP has. SNAP is one of the most successful federal programs to not only benefit the individuals it serves, but SNAP also benefits the economy by putting in and keeping dollars in circulation. So cutting SNAP is cutting into our domestic economy. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut such a successful program.

SNAP benefits are considered one of the fastest and most effective forms of economic stimulus.
An additional $5 of SNAP benefits generates $9 in total economic activity
According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, each $1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs
Every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobs
For every $1 billion in cuts to SNAP funding, 11,437 jobs would be destroyed
83% of SNAP benefits, equal to $53.4 billion, were spent at 36,500 supermarkets around the U.S.; the remaining 17% was spent at 180,000 small retail stores (including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, wholesalers, and meal services), for a total of $11 billion
SNAP beneficiaries spend more dollars on food in local stores than eligible non-participants
An increase in SNAP participation by 5% would result in 2.2 million low-income Americans receiving $859 million in SNAP benefits, generating $1.5 billion in nationwide economic activity

—

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

Submitted by Hawkfish on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 9:35am

The charitable giving cap

@gulfgal98

Means that we are all forced to fund around three quarters of the war machine instead of diverting our resources to helping our neighbors who are starving in tents. This is why the anti-war platform is so important.

#2 In my area of NC, the local food bank serves between 20 and 25% of the population. The median household income is slightly above that of the state at large and the poverty level is slightly below that of the state at large. According to our local food bank,most of the families that they serve have at least one household member who is working. Food banks should not be forced to pick up the extra burden that is being created when the federal government cuts back on SNAP. What our local food bank does is to supplement and bridge the gap between SNAP benefits and what lower income families can afford. For example, SNAP does not cover items such as toilet paper, toiletries, or school supplies, all of which our local food bank provides. So cutting SNAP also cuts into the efficiency of the programs that local food banks provide. Many struggle to meet the increasing demand for services due to the increasing impoverishment of the citizens of this country and the cut back in SNAP. But there is a another reason that the cuts in SNAP are bad and that is the indirect cuts to the economy every cut in SNAP has. SNAP is one of the most successful federal programs to not only benefit the individuals it serves, but SNAP also benefits the economy by putting in and keeping dollars in circulation. So cutting SNAP is cutting into our domestic economy. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut such a successful program. SNAP benefits are considered one of the fastest and most effective forms of economic stimulus. An additional $5 of SNAP benefits generates $9 in total economic activity According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, each $1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs Every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobs For every $1 billion in cuts to SNAP funding, 11,437 jobs would be destroyed 83% of SNAP benefits, equal to $53.4 billion, were spent at 36,500 supermarkets around the U.S.; the remaining 17% was spent at 180,000 small retail stores (including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, wholesalers, and meal services), for a total of $11 billion SNAP beneficiaries spend more dollars on food in local stores than eligible non-participants An increase in SNAP participation by 5% would result in 2.2 million low-income Americans receiving $859 million in SNAP benefits, generating $1.5 billion in nationwide economic activity

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by wendy davis on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 4:18pm

an excellent reminder of

@gulfgal98

the multiplier effect of not only SNAP, but of all social safety nets (what's left of them).

as to bloomberg's having noted the several dollar store outlets had lost share value on the news: fine by me; much of their 'food' is toxic crap, as are some of the products like toothpaste.

#2 In my area of NC, the local food bank serves between 20 and 25% of the population. The median household income is slightly above that of the state at large and the poverty level is slightly below that of the state at large. According to our local food bank,most of the families that they serve have at least one household member who is working. Food banks should not be forced to pick up the extra burden that is being created when the federal government cuts back on SNAP. What our local food bank does is to supplement and bridge the gap between SNAP benefits and what lower income families can afford. For example, SNAP does not cover items such as toilet paper, toiletries, or school supplies, all of which our local food bank provides. So cutting SNAP also cuts into the efficiency of the programs that local food banks provide. Many struggle to meet the increasing demand for services due to the increasing impoverishment of the citizens of this country and the cut back in SNAP. But there is a another reason that the cuts in SNAP are bad and that is the indirect cuts to the economy every cut in SNAP has. SNAP is one of the most successful federal programs to not only benefit the individuals it serves, but SNAP also benefits the economy by putting in and keeping dollars in circulation. So cutting SNAP is cutting into our domestic economy. It is penny wise and pound foolish to cut such a successful program. SNAP benefits are considered one of the fastest and most effective forms of economic stimulus. An additional $5 of SNAP benefits generates $9 in total economic activity According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, each $1 billion of retail generated by SNAP creates $340 million in farm production, $110 million in farm value-added, and 3,300 farm jobs Every $1 billion of SNAP benefits also creates 8,900-17,900 full-time jobs For every $1 billion in cuts to SNAP funding, 11,437 jobs would be destroyed 83% of SNAP benefits, equal to $53.4 billion, were spent at 36,500 supermarkets around the U.S.; the remaining 17% was spent at 180,000 small retail stores (including grocery stores, farmers’ markets, wholesalers, and meal services), for a total of $11 billion SNAP beneficiaries spend more dollars on food in local stores than eligible non-participants An increase in SNAP participation by 5% would result in 2.2 million low-income Americans receiving $859 million in SNAP benefits, generating $1.5 billion in nationwide economic activity

Submitted by lizzyh7 on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 8:22pm

Not only is this simply

Cruel but dumb as well. Sure, suck more spending out of a consumer driven capitalist economy, that'll help, lots. Yeah. Sure.

—

Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur

Submitted by on the cusp on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 8:33pm

Now, which Democratic President

wanted to reform Welfare as We know it? And which Democratic President fought hard to add food, or healthcare, or housing subsidies to the poorest of the poor?
I am sick of Trump, and also castigating Trump. He is not new, except for his nutty and embarrassing tweets. His policies and executive orders, his appointments, seem right in line with much that has come before.
He would not be in his position without the Dems, nor would he be able to starve the poor without Dems acquiescence.
It is not that fucking monster.
It is the economic/political system that is the monster.
I fed a poor person today. I gave two other poor persons a job today.
I gave free legal advice to 3 poor people today.
That's all I got.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by wokkamile on Tue, 07/23/2019 - 10:28pm

No , not a monster.

@on the cusp Just doing a good imitation of an emerging American Fascist Dictator.

Today for instance, I understand he said, or tweeted, that by Article II of the Constitution, he "can do whatever he wants".

So reassuring to hear such sentiments coming from the president. Even worse than Nixon's absurd "When the president does something, that means it's not illegal."

Maybe I'm forgetting, but has any Dem president in the past 100 yrs come remotely close to such language?

Submitted by Hawkfish on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 9:29am

Thank you

@on the cusp

I know it seems like a drop in the bucket, but the people you helped appreciate it. As do I.

—

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

Submitted by boriscleto on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 9:00am

SNAP is a farm subsidy

So just another example of Trump fucking his voters.

—

" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "

Submitted by wendy davis on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 11:44am

i that so?

@boriscleto

i do know that WIC (women, infants & children) is.

Submitted by dfarrah on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 12:58pm

Why do you write something

@boriscleto before you even have an idea of what you are saying?

SNAP - Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Administered by the US Department of Agriculture, it is not a "farm subsidy."

—

dfarrah

Submitted by edg on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 1:19pm

Hold on there, hoss.

@dfarrah

SNAP is indeed a farm subsidy. It's an indirect subsidy designed to bolster the market for farmers. It comprises 80% of the $867 billion farm bill.

See USDA - A Short History of SNAP Since 1939 for more info on food stamps long history and their linkage to US farm subsidization and management. For example, "Among the official purposes of the Food Stamp Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-525) were strengthening the agricultural economy and providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households."

Submitted by wendy davis on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 4:23pm

thanks for the 411,

@edg

amigo; i'd sure forgotten.

Submitted by dfarrah on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 4:43pm

Okay, it is not

@edg a direct farm subsidy, if you must be so picky.

The money for SNAP goes directly to people, not farms or farmers, who use the funds to buy food.

I'm so sorry I didn't get so specific. I used to review direct farm subsidies and loans, where funds actually went directly straight to the farmers' pockets.

In the meantime, I'll await the protests from farmers about the cut to their 'subsidies.' I can see some of the big ag companies crying now.

—

dfarrah

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 6:12pm

Seriously? you still don't get it

@dfarrah

Trump is wants to do away with food stamps altogether. Zip nada. No more food stamps for anyone. This is what this essay is about, not trying to score points and saying that Trump is not as bad as he is. "But other presidents have done stuff like this."

No one denies that. I've bitched about Clinton's welfare reform since he inked the paper. But Trump is the one who is doing this now. BTW. He recently admitted that he will go after social security if he's reelected. "But Obama and Clinton tried to do that too."

We know and we gave them shit for trying to do it.

BTW. Can you quit insulting people here by saying what you did to Boris and others in other essays?

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 1:30pm

Says the pot

@dfarrah

again.

—

Scientists are concerned that conspiracy theories may die out if they keep coming true at the current alarming rate.

Submitted by longtalldrink on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 10:13am

Hypocrisy at its best

"This proposal perfectly showcases the Republicans’ cynical special interest agenda that gives billion-dollar handouts to big corporations and the wealthy few, and then steals from children, veterans, seniors and working families to make up the difference,” Pelosi said."

Yea lil' Nancy, like you haven't helped him all the way.

—

Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin

Submitted by wendy davis on Wed, 07/24/2019 - 11:49am