US Republicans make the poor pay to balance the budget

[Joecooool]

The impetus to cut food stamps is ideological not fiscal, and low-wages mean work provides no guarantee against hunger.

During a discussion at the University of Michigan in 2010, the billionaire vice-chairman of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway firm, Charles Munger, was asked whether the government should have bailed out homeowners rather than banks. "You've got it exactly wrong," he said. "There's danger in just shovelling out money to people who say, 'My life is a little harder than it used to be.' At a certain place you've got to say to the people, 'Suck it in and cope, buddy. Suck it in and cope.'"

But banks, he insisted, need our help. It turns out that moral hazard – the notion that those who know the costs of their failure will be borne by others will become increasingly reckless – only really applies to the working poor.

"You should thank God" for bank bailouts, Munger told his audience. "Now, if you talk about bailouts for everybody else, there comes a place where if you just start bailing out all the individuals instead of telling them to adapt, the culture dies."

In the five years since the financial crisis took hold, people have been sucking it in by the lungful and discovering how pitiful a coping strategy that is. In Michigan, the state where Munger spoke, black male life expectancy is lower than male life expectancy in Uzbekistan; in Detroit, the closest big city, black infant mortality is on a par with Syria (before the war).

As such, the crisis accelerated an already heinous trend of growing inequalities. Over a period of 18 years, America's white working class – particularly women – have started dying younger. "Absent a war, genocide, pandemic, or massive governmental collapse, drops in life expectancy are rare," wrote Monica Potts in the American Prospect last month. But this was a war on the poor. "Lack of access to education, medical care, good wages and healthy food isn't just leaving the worst-off Americans behind. It's killing them."

This particular crisis, however, has also accentuated the contradictions between the claims long made for neoliberalism and the system's ability to deliver on them. The "culture" of capitalism, to which Munger referred, did not die but thrived precisely because it was not forced to adapt, while working people – who kept it afloat through their taxes and now through cuts in public spending – struggle to survive. Given the broad framing of economic struggles in the west exacerbated by the crisis, this reality is neither new nor specific to the US. "Over the past 30 years the workers' take from the pie has shrunk across the globe," explains an editorial in the latest Economist. "The scale and breadth of this squeeze are striking … When growth is sluggish … workers are getting a smaller morsel of a smaller slice of a slow-growing pie."

A few days before the bailout was passed, I quoted Lenin in these pages. He once argued: "The capitalists can always buy themselves out of any crises, as long as they make the workers pay." What has been striking, particularly recently, has been the brazen and callous nature in which these payments have been extorted.

Last Friday, 47 million Americans had their food stamp benefits cut. These provide assistance to those who lack sufficient money to feed themselves and their families. Individuals lose $11 (£7) a month while a family of four will lose $36. That will save the public purse precious little – bombing Syria would have been far more costly – but will mean a great deal to those affected. "Before the cut, it was kind of an assumption you were going to the food bank anyway," Lance Worth, of Washington state, told the Bellingham Herald. "I guess I'm just going to go $20 hungrier – aren't I?"

The cut marks the lapse in stimulus package ushered in four years ago. But while the recession is officially over, the poverty it engendered remains. Government figures show one in seven Americans is food insecure. According to Gallup, in August, one in five said they have, at times during the last year, lacked money to buy food that they or their families needed. Both figures are roughly the same as when Obama was elected. This negligence will now be compounded by mendacity. Republicans propose further swingeing cuts to the food-stamp programme; Democrats suggest smaller cuts. The question is not whether the vulnerable will be hammered, but by how much.

The impetus behind these cuts are not fiscal but ideological. Republicans, in particular, claim the poor have it too easy. "We don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency," claimed former Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. "That drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives."

The notion that food "drains the will" while hunger motivates the ambitious would have more currency – not much, but more – if the right wasn't simultaneously doing its utmost to drive down wages to a level where work provides no guarantee against hunger. In last week's paper for the Economic Policy Institute, Gordon Lafer, an associate professor at the University of Oregon, revealed the degree to which conservatives have been driving down wages, benefits and protections at a local level after their victory at the 2010 midterms.

He writes: "Four states passed laws restricting the minimum wage, four lifted restrictions on child labour, and 16 imposed new limits on benefits for the unemployed. With the support of the corporate lobbies, states also passed laws stripping workers of overtime rights, repealing or restricting rights to sick leave, and making it harder to sue one's employer for race or sex discrimination."

That's why 40% of households on food stamps have at least one person working. And the states most aggressive in pursuing these policies, Lafer points out, had some of the smallest budget deficits in the country.

Immediately after Obama's election in 2008, his chief of staff to be, Rahm Emanuel, said: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." The crisis didn't go to waste. But it is the right that has seized the opportunity. Not content with balancing the budget on the bellies of the hungry, it is also fattening the coffers of the wealthy on the backs of the poor.

US Republicans make the poor pay to balance the budget | Gary Younge | Comment is free | The Guardian

[Sea Six]

Well, I'm sold. That article was so good at articulating.

Bring on the redistribution of wealth, say I!

[Bill]

Phil, can you explain how getting a little less free stuff from the taxpayers each month equals actually PAYING to lower the deficit.

If I help pay for something, then I have given something of value for it. I pay taxes, as do you. We are paying our share. The guy who is on food stamps isn't paying any income tax, and if he does work, he most probably gets EITC (earned income tax credit), which means when you and I are sending checks to Uncle Sam on April 15, our food stamp receiving worker is waiting at the mail box to get a part of what you and I remitted. How is he "paying" for anything?

[69camfrk]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Phil, can you explain how getting a little less free stuff from the taxpayers each month equals actually PAYING to lower the deficit.

If I help pay for something, then I have given something of value for it. I pay taxes, as do you. We are paying our share. The guy who is on food stamps isn't paying any income tax, and if he does work, he most probably gets EITC (earned income tax credit), which means when you and I are sending checks to Uncle Sam on April 15, our food stamp receiving worker is waiting at the mail box to get a part of what you and I remitted. How is he "paying" for anything?

Yeah, EITC....my hard earned money is now yours. I feel great about that....

[DukeAllen]

Congrats JC! You've mastered ctrl+v!

[Admiral Blue]

Why don't you read that one more time and rethink your position? Pay close attention to the part of your post that states...


Last Friday, ***47 million***Americans had their food stamp benefits cut

[Cybercowboy]

They aren't paying for shit. Most of them have probably never contributed a single penny to the treasury.

Utter, total, epic fail.

But with the complete failure of ObamaCare, what else can he do but change the subject? Nothing.

[DukeAllen]

Originally Posted by Cybercowboy

But with the complete failure of ObamaCare, what else can he do but change the subject?

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Phil, can you explain how getting a little less free stuff from the taxpayers each month equals actually PAYING to lower the deficit.

If I help pay for something, then I have given something of value for it. I pay taxes, as do you. We are paying our share. The guy who is on food stamps isn't paying any income tax, and if he does work, he most probably gets EITC (earned income tax credit), which means when you and I are sending checks to Uncle Sam on April 15, our food stamp receiving worker is waiting at the mail box to get a part of what you and I remitted. How is he "paying" for anything?

First of all, millions of the people on food stamps were once middle class people who paid into the system for years.

Regardless, what is your solution. We are talking about working people here, not lazy slobs sitting on their asses al day. What is your solution when the only employer in town is Wal-Mart or McDonalds? Are we supposed to tell these people tough shit, starve? Are we supposed to let their kids starve?

Conservatives never have an answer for that. Its always the same stupid bullshit - "go get a better job". The real answer would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage but that is a non starter. So what we have left are food stamps - which is a compromise between the liberal position of "raise the wages" and the conservative position of "fuk off and die".

[Cybercowboy]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

First of all, millions of the people on food stamps were once middle class people who paid into the system for years.

Perhaps a small minority meet this demographic. Perhaps 3%. Probably even less. It's hard for a retired couple to qualify for food stamps, but super easy for a young welfare queen.

Regardless, what is your solution. We are talking about working people here, not lazy slobs sitting on their asses al day. What is your solution when the only employer in town is Wal-Mart or McDonalds? Are we supposed to tell these people tough shit, starve? Are we supposed to let their kids starve?

Novel idea. Too bad Obama's job creation skilz rival Lady Gaga's singing ability without the auto-tuner.

Conservatives never have an answer for that. Its always the same stupid bullshit - "go get a better job". The real answer would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage but that is a non starter. So what we have left are food stamps - which is a compromise between the liberal position of "raise the wages" and the conservative position of "fuk off and die".

So much wrong with this paragraph. Living wage? If you artificially inflate the lowest wage rates, what about those just above the new levels? Raise those too? Otherwise, who is going to work at a job that requires some actual skill for the same wage some broom-pusher is making? Nobody, that's who. So all you are doing is further distorting the labor market, and causing all sorts of unintended consequences.

But then you just prop up the "fuk off and die" straw man because that's what liberals do: erect straw man and knock it over. You assume that your political foes must be driven by malice, not by compassion as you so nobly ascribe to yourself. Is it compassion to foster a system that destroys a person's ability and desire to support oneself? The answer throughout history says "No" but you just keep on keepin' on.

You simply refuse to admit that we have created an entire class of people who sit around and wait for their government cheese, and instead dream up these poor put-upon ex-middle class hard working people down on their luck, who perhaps make up 3-5% of the recipient class.

[Cybercowboy]

Since 1964 we have spent around $40 trillion (whatever the number is, it's astronomical) to fight the War on Poverty and we have more people who are in poverty than in 1964. How's that working out? A thinking person would come to the conclusion that the entire approach appears flawed and would look for a different plan of attack. Nothing has done a better job than capitalism to lift people out of poverty. And the welfare state model fails every single time. Sure, you can cherry pick small outliers here and there, but overall it's a train wreck for socialism's success.

[73sbVert]

Well said Cyber!!

[Ch@0s]

The problem is these families become dependent on the hand out. Their kids learn how to cheat the system and do. They also lie to get benefits, more kids equals more help so they keep having more kids that are just a pay check to them. I know I grew up watching it happen.

The studies wont tell you that Mothers will teach a pregnant teen not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate. Why? so she can get help, free housing, food stamp, WIC...ETC. Mean while the supposed non existent father also lives with them and reaps the benefits of our hard labor.

They often sell their food stamps for drugs or trade then for 1/4 their value in cash. I could go on for ever here but I wont, its shocking.

[DukeAllen]

Originally Posted by Ch@0s

The problem is these families become dependent on the hand out. Their kids learn how to cheat the system and do. They also lie to get benefits, more kids equals more help so they keep having more kids that are just a pay check to them. I know I grew up watching it happen.

The studies wont tell you that Mothers will teach a pregnant teen not to put the fathers name on the birth certificate. Why? so she can get help, free housing, food stamp, WIC...ETC. Mean while the supposed non existent father also lives with them and reaps the benefits of our hard labor.

They often sell their food stamps for drugs or trade then for 1/4 their value in cash. I could go on for ever here but I wont, its shocking.

I've had the misfortune to know people that have done this. The woman (totally healthy other than being a loud mouth and a trouble maker, and total dirtbag) had about ten kids and spent most of her time from her teens until her 50s on the dole. Her husband worked and lived with them...he also beat the hell out of her and the kids, did unspeakable things to the daughters...was arrested at one point, ordered to stay away...and of course went right back home with them. The woman later ran away with a bank robber. She was even featured on America's Most Wanted. The man eventually got what he deserved (died of, so I was told, some form of STD, and is probably burning in hell). After the kids grew up, the smarter ones moved away and refused to talk to her. Of course most of them followed in her footsteps...kids, welfare, trashy mates, drugs...
FYI...they were not friends, neighbors, or relatives of mine, thank God!
But these are JC's poor unfortunates that he thinks deserves a lifetime on welfare. And he wonders why people who live in the real world think the system is a load of bullshit.

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

First of all, millions of the people on food stamps were once middle class people who paid into the system for years.

Regardless, what is your solution. We are talking about working people here, not lazy slobs sitting on their asses al day. What is your solution when the only employer in town is Wal-Mart or McDonalds? Are we supposed to tell these people tough shit, starve? Are we supposed to let their kids starve?

Conservatives never have an answer for that. Its always the same stupid bullshit - "go get a better job". The real answer would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage but that is a non starter. So what we have left are food stamps - which is a compromise between the liberal position of "raise the wages" and the conservative position of "fuk off and die".

IF the commies in the .gov would actually FACTUALLY SEAL the BORDER, there would be plenty of jobs for the welfare types.....subtract 30 million jobs off the 'worker' base and watch what happens to the welfare rolls.....

and don't forget, most of the illegals are into drugs and underground economy....read crime.....think for a nanosecond you going to TAX illegal income off ILLEGALS????

THAT alone makes their min wage rise to livable income, it would take maybe 5 years to correct all that JFK/LBJ socialist welfare thinking on the streets.....maybe less, really AND we cut the welfare down to nothing.....

Work or die, that damn simple, do drugs, die, who cares???

[Stangkiller]

So because we want the government to reduce throwing money at the "poor", that somehow equates to the poor paying for the deficit reduction? I'm pretty sure we the tax payers are still paying the "poor" to stay poor. How about it's time to incentivize the poor to become contributing members of society?!

Feel bad for the poor? Go volunteer/donate to a food bank. Personally I don't think food stamps should exist in areas where food banks exist. Need food for your table? Go to the food bank for canned veggies and a bag of rice. Want to eat better than that? Do something more productive than a minimum wage job.

[Chris Fowler]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Conservatives never have an answer for that. Its always the same stupid bullshit - "go get a better job".

Sad that those on the left can't see that that is the answer!.

Work hard, get promoted, find a better paying job. Get training. Don't drop out of school. Get a GED. Do online courses. Go to community college. Go to night school.

Work to better yourself.

The real answer would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage but that is a non starter.

How many times have we raised the minimum wage? How many people has that raised out of poverty?

Raising the minimum wage does nothing but deflate the value of each job, raise prices at places that are having to pay more and devalue the work of everyone that didn't get a raise.

But simple math is an issue on the left...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Chris Fowler

Sad that those on the left can't see that that is the answer!.

Work hard, get promoted, find a better paying job. Get training. Don't drop out of school. Get a GED. Do online courses. Go to community college. Go to night school.

Work to better yourself.



How many times have we raised the minimum wage? How many people has that raised out of poverty?

Raising the minimum wage does nothing but deflate the value of each job, raise prices at places that are having to pay more and devalue the work of everyone that didn't get a raise.

But simple math is an issue on the left...

Exactly. Everyone at every rung of the income ladder is going to want a comensurate bump in their pay, too, so everyone gets paid more, but now everything you can buy with the money you they earn COSTS MORE. It's a wash. The only slight advantage I can think of to arbitrarily raising everyone's wages is that they might be able to afford slightly more cheap Chinese imported crap. Of course, as the cost of our products rise, the less stuff we can export, so those people who make stuff to export lose their jobs and then go on welfare. Oops. Unintended consequence.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

First of all, millions of the people on food stamps were once middle class people who paid into the system for years.

Regardless, what is your solution. We are talking about working people here, not lazy slobs sitting on their asses al day. What is your solution when the only employer in town is Wal-Mart or McDonalds? Are we supposed to tell these people tough shit, starve? Are we supposed to let their kids starve?

Conservatives never have an answer for that. Its always the same stupid bullshit - "go get a better job". The real answer would be to raise the minimum wage to a livable wage but that is a non starter. So what we have left are food stamps - which is a compromise between the liberal position of "raise the wages" and the conservative position of "fuk off and die".

What is my solution? Others have given more eloquent answers here, but how about for starters, live within your means. When I was a college student, I lived in a 2 bedroom craphole apartment with 3 other guys. We cooked a lot of mac and cheese and Ramen soup. We lived within our means, and didn't go sign up for food stamps to become burdens on the taxpayers. If you work at a no skill fast food job, my question to you is, why do you not have several roomates, sharing the bills? Is living with others convenient? No. Is it affordable? Yes. If you cannot afford to live independently, or take care of yourself, then you should be looking at having roomates....possibly a lot of them. Either that, or live with your parents.




Edit: As to your "well, they used to pay taxes" argument, the sad fact is, all that money has long been spent by a profligate government. It's gone, like a popcorn fart. Now, that isn't their fault, but it doesn't change the fact: that money is gone.

Now, let's look at those folks a little more. So, we have nice, normal, middle class, working folks who are suddenly unemployed or underemployed. It can happen. Why didn't those folks squirrel away some money for a rainy day? Why didn't those folks downsize, and sell off their crap if they could no longer afford their old lifestyle? I'd feel a lot better if folks looking to get on the public teat would sacrifice their stuff and their lifestyle before they come to me with their hand out.

[Bingo Fuel]

HR 3353: Extend not cut SNAP Benefits
Introduced: October 28th 2013
Sponsor: John Conyers Jr. (D-MI)
Referred to Committee: Oct 28th 2013

Trying to shift blame for another Dem short-coming is all the rage these days.

The sponsor (Conyers) just introduced this Bill 2 days before this temporary benefit increase expired.

Knowing that the current SNAP expiration as part of ARRA 'stimulus' expired Oct 31st, and legislation must be passed to extend the SNAP benefits,
why would the Dems wait so long to introduce a Bill?

Once this Bill was introduced, The House Rules Committee (chaired by a Pub as part of the Speaker's (another Pub) responsibility immediately sent it to Committee for review and markup.

It's put on the Committee or sub committee's calendar (long with dozens of other Bills).
The Bill is reviewed/possibly marked up, then sent back to the House floor.
From there to the Senate, etc.

It seems that if this were such a high priority, the Dems wouldn't have waited until the last minute.