(2PM EST – promoted by Nightprowlkitty)
You know, fuck any Democrat who tells me to quit criticizing the party when they act like complete and utter morans. Yes, morans.
Take yesterday for example, I just knew the Democratic Party was doing something fucked up because they were injecting so much meta into the pool.
At first I thought it was the fact that the military would be manning the drones on the Arizona border to kill anyone darker than a paper bag, or toasted tortilla, if you will. But that was just good news for John McCain.
For the amount of asshatting going on yesterday, there had to be something so spectacular, so against the Democratic Party platform, something so dire to the basic ideology of liberals, they had Gibbs go run naked under a bus.
Then I found out why.
The fuckers cut food stamps.
Seriously, Democrats hate babies so much they want them to starve. We knew Republicans were baby haters, but the Democrats? Wow.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50…
Democrats are poised to pass a bill today that will provide $26 billion in additional funding to help states cover Medicaid expenses and teacher salaries. To pay for the bill, however, they are accelerating the scale-back of food stamp payments — at a time when a record number of Americans are relying on food stamps.
In an unusual move, the House of Representatives interrupted its August recess this week to return to Washington to pass this aid bill. The legislation, which passed in the Senate last week, extends programs enacted in the stimulus package, with $16 billion for state health care programs and $10 billion to help school boards avoid teacher layoffs.
Democrats convinced two Republicans in the Senate to support the measure in part by ensuring it would not add to the deficit. That was in part accomplished by cutting food stamp payments beginning in 2014 by $12 billion. The cut would bring funding for the food stamp program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, back to pre-stimulus levels ahead of schedule.
Well I guess Michelle Obama’s Fight Against Childhood Obesity will be a success, considering 40 million Americans are currently on assistance. Starving will make them thin, so I will give the Obamas that.
Or maybe the plan is to feed all the starving babies with the food from Michelle’s garden, who the fuck knows. All I know is taking food away from a dying baby, gaunt with malnutrition, is not part of the Democratic Party platform, or at least the one I am familiar with.
Of course, smooth-talking Promise McPromise Obama said the 13.6 percent stimulus increase in food stamps was designed to last until 2014. Then it was magically going to last until 2018 because food is cheap right now. So instead of allowing babies to have two meals a day on the back of decreased food prices, Obama got Congress to put the starving babies in the corner.
Heaven forbid the poorest and most hungry of babies get a break for once.
Nope, need to steal that candy from the babies to pay off teachers unions during an election year. That is some crazy shit.
So I got to thinking, instead of putting American babies on a forced hungry regime, why couldn’t we cut something else?
For example, just two major weapons programs alone – the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter and the Future Combat System – have racked up cost overruns of $80 billion.
This is cost overruns, not the actual budget for these weapons systems. Just forcing the Pentagon to stay within their own outrageous budget for two weapons system, just two weapons systems, could feed the poorest of American families for 6 years.
Maybe we can get the Pentagon to weaponize babies dying of hunger, then everyone wins, especially Obama.
But who knew Obama would start his compromise on this jobs bill by demanding babies starve so the President could score some cheap political points in an election year.
Babies.
25 comments
Skip to comment form
It’ll trickle down if we hold our breath for a few decades, no?
This is a perfect example of f*cked up democratic party politics.
If there were anything worth going to the mattresses for, it’s feeding hungry people. The Dems need to draw a line in the dirt and say, “No, asshats, we will not hurt hungry people and their children. No pasaran!” Do they do that? No. These mfers decide to pay for current allegedly emergency stuff by cutting food to the most needy, most hungry Americans in the future? No vision. No ideology. No compassion. No moral indignation about being asked to hurt defenseless people. Nada. Zinch. Zip. Zero. F*ck these people and the Cadillacs they came in on.
I know, I have to vote for the f*ckers because otherwise I’ll have Sarah Palin cutting food stamps to hungry people.
those are the Future Soldiers of America they’re starving!
But look. Change we can believe in. You can actually get tofu on WIC now. Who knew?
cut off food stamps to white house press secretaries?
If those babies want to eat they can get a fuckin’ real job! Or join the army and go deliver the same benefits of freedom and democracy they enjoy to countries around the world.
with you that is asshattery of the highest order, but it won’t affect anyone until 2014 and it was based on expected higher food prices and the original funding came out of the stimulus. This was potential future food stamp benefits.
Last I read this morning, the progressive caucus has put Nancy Pelosi on notice that they’re going to add it back in when they get back from their August recess.
Let’s keep an eye on whether they actually do it, eh?
Thanks, pinche!
Well, considering there are over 4,000,000 unemployed Americans, many of whom have lost their homes, their savings, their 401-k’s and who’ve even had their tents destroyed, in some instances, and now chopping food stamps, and oh, yeah, “entitlement reform”/”fiscal responsibility” coming up for votes in the next couple of months on how to openly steal our Social Security and Medicare Funds successfully, OUR MONIES, our hard-earned monies contributed to by US and our employer(s) over many, many years — it seems there is a very concerted attempt to render Americans to such impoverishment that they will just die off. With no job, no food, no medical, what else can one think?
The Bilderbergs always claimed that the world is over-populated, so is this the way you go about diminishing the population? Starving people to death? There is ENOUGH everything to go around for everyone, it’s a matter of distribution, but corporations have control over distribution, etc. and changing the great disparity of income between the rich and the poor.
Take NAFTA, CAPTA and whatever else that we’ve done to aid and abet our chaos and crimes, which affects the entire world.
When I was a baby I crawled 4 miles in the snow to pre-pre-school. And I ate acorns and pinecones that I found on the ground. When my piss froze in my diaper I didn’t complain.
I was president of the Babies for Liberty Society and used stilts to appear taller so I could vote. If starving babies are given free food, they’ll be on their knees begging for food their whole lives. Let’s be logical: if every baby born was fed by the government its whole life, this country would be in deep shit trouble.
who’d of thunk it? By jove, he’s got it.
there are the anchor babies of the insane right and now the Dems are cutting back the food stamps. 30,000 people showed up in Atlanta to apply for public housing which was already doled out. The Gibbs moment might be a good thing as it left no doubt about where these fuckers stand. all they got is fear of the crazies. The Rude Pundit was at his best over this. Maybe it will get the left riled up enough to stop kissing the ring.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com…
We on the left who paid attention didn’t expect Barack Obama to be our big liberal buddy Christ. We did, however, take him at his word on a number of issues, like transparency, for instance. Instead, we’re supposed to be grateful that bills with the names of items on the left-wing agenda got passed. Look at this big-ass new law. It says, “Health care.” Ain’t that cool?
I want my money back. The time was a educational as it radicalized my ass to the point where I got back to where I started, but the money I donated really pisses me off. I still get emails from somebody at the DNC named Mitch who want’s 5$ so they can get me that pony I want so bad. I put them on my spam list.
I find it curious that the Republicans seem to be getting a free pass on this whole matter. I was initially much relieved to learn that this legislation had passed, however, was saddened to learn of the horrible price that was paid.
If I was one of the favored few in the top 1% (I’m not), I’d be overjoyed to witness the current infighting among the Dems over this matter, while the impact on the deficit of huge tax cuts to benefit people like me remain ignored.
Where are the progressives with the reminders to the people that the Republicans never raised a single concern about deficits during the Bush Administration, never said a word about the enormous cost to the taxpayers for the Medicare drug benefit passed during those years (with no volume discounts to be negotiated with the drug companies), and the bold statement by Dick Cheney (remember him?) that deficits don’t matter, as recounted by Business Week in 2004? Here is an excerpt from that article…
Where are the challenges to the obstructionist Republicans? The largest tax cuts in history were passed in 2001, with most of the benefit going to the top 1%. If placing more money in the hands of the most wealthy translates into increased tax revenues and more jobs for all, why is it that nine years later we aren’t enjoying widespread prosperity? After all, at this very moment in time, those huge tax cuts remain in place.
People oftentimes rejoice at the thought of others having their salaries and benefits reduced (usually people making less than $100,000/year), forgetting that these now poorer individuals are more likely to have homes foreclosed, perhaps in the same ungated neighborhood, adversely impacting the home values of all other homes in the vicinity, as well as inviting increased crime. The “new poor” are less likely to spend money in stores, restaurants, and other local businesses, leading to further job losses and decreased tax revenues, leading to still further cuts going forward. When and where does this vicious spiral end?
As a governmental employee, having passed the twenty-four year mark a few months ago, the continuing budget cuts remain a source of ongoing personal concern. A fairly generous defined benefit pension seemed a reasonable tradeoff for lower wages over those years, however, the New York Times has even jumped on the bandwagon in suggesting that such constitutionally protected benefits, even for current retirees, be scaled back.
Even with the passage of this temporary measure, we are still facing significant cutbacks within the next two months, cuts that would have been much larger had this compromise not been made.
Some of us have clamored for the Senate to deep-six the filibuster, however, the Dems may correctly conclude that many in their base will stay at home on election day, and that with this safeguard removed, the Republicans could finally drive a stake into the weakening heart of this once better nation (I hesitate to use the word “great”).
I would hope that the outrage would not be directed toward governmental employees (a favorite Republican talking point), but rather the Republicans and Blue Dogs who refuse to halt the ongoing theft from the poor to further enrich the rich.
I think it would be erroneous to conclude that if this legislation had not passed, as the Republicans wished, that no one would be harmed.
The Republicans successfully clamored for the Dems to choose between two unsavory alternatives, with the opportunty to criticize either way, and wield an effective wedge to divide the once relatively united Democratic faithful.
Let’s see what the alternative would have been.
1-Fewer workers to attend to the developmentally disabled and mentally ill, leading to rehospitalizations and incarcerations that would ultimately be much more expensive and detrimental to all.
2-Fewer child protective services workers would mean that more children could potentially remain, unprotected, in horrendous and oftentimes dangerous homes.
3-Fewer staff to assist those who are laid off to access the benefits to which they are entitled, including unemployment, worker’s compensation, disability services, and job training.
4-Fewer teachers and higher education staff would translate into fewer classes, reduced education at a time when we are falling dismally behind many other countries of the world. Larger class sizes would mean that many teachers would not be able to spend time with those students who have special needs and need time/attention in order to succeed. Some school districts around the country are moving to reduce classes to four days per week.
5-Fewer law enforcement personnel can be detrimental to people as well. As I recall, it seems that the police force in Oakland, California may soon no longer be able to respond to anything but crimes currently in progress.
6-Fewer community corrections officers could easily translate into more people becoming crime victims and more former convicts returning to jails and prisons, where they will represent a significant drain upon dwindling tax revenues, supervised by smaller numbers of staff to ensure that safety of inmates and each other.
7-Governmental employees oftentimes assist custodial parents in obtaining child support from deadbeat parents, meaning that the errant father or mother can begin paying their fair share, relieving taxpayers in the process.
There are obviously many other classes of employees whose disppearance from the workforce would ultimately prove detrimental to the populace, disproportionately harming those at the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder.
Since teachers have been particularly targeted, would fewer teachers benefit children, most particularly children from poor families?
We are correct to be angry about this reprehensible “deal with the devil” and the Dems should be informed of our outrage, but we might perhaps be well-served to direct the lion’s share of our ire toward those most culpable — the Republicans and the Blue Dogs.
if we can’t get enough real progressives elected to Congress (and stop counting Blue Dogs as Dems, as we do today) by 2014 to reverse this cutback, we will be dealing with much more concerning issues than this one.
And if enough Dems stay at home on election day, even if this deal hadn’t been done, what would stop the Republicans from cutting back on both programs, not four years from the present time, but rather, immediately?
Don’t get me wrong. I have been and continue to be outraged with the apparent impotence (some of which I believe is feigned) of most Dems. But we allow ourselves to lose sight of our even bigger enemies, the Republicans, at our peril.