You’re not taking anything away from someone — by not giving them a handout.
Oh just go ahead and print more money and give them anything they want. We are past the tipping point and things are not going to get fixed.
Really?
Stealing is the ZIRP going on decimating savers and senior citizens.
In addition to the 1% cut, the fraud that is rampart in the food stamp program should be attacked vigorously. It could be that reducing fraud by 50% would save more than 1%.
These two, short sentences tell us a lot about our government & our culture:
1)
We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
And
2)
Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money. How come we never hear about welfare running out of money? What’s interesting is the first group “worked for” their money, but the second didn’t.
Go ahead and restore the funding, but make “working” a requirement to receive foodstamps. I don’t care if they go out and trim grass with scissors, but they should do something for that money. Foodstamps have just become another Democrat vote-buying scheme.
People pay into Social Security and get little return. People on food stamps don’t pay into a food stamp fund but get better raises.
Yes they are stealing, but they are stealing 100% of the money that goes into the food stamp program in the first place. Cuting by 1% means they are stealing less.
It’s not stealing but it’s stupid.
The right way to cut food stamps is to create jobs. And the right way to create jobs is to raise the import tariffs and cut income taxes by a corresponding amount.
i think the article referring to $30 million to $72 million is either meaning people or billions.
cut or reduction in the increase?
entitlement mentality to a T
Stealing? Here’s what ‘stealing’ is. In 2008, there was a table full of groceries that I could buy for $100. My $100 would purchase the entire table of groceries. Today I now have someone else competing for the groceries on that table. I show up with my usual $100. But now someone else shows up with $40 on their EBT card. This means that it now takes $140 to purchase the entire table of groceries. Yet I only have $100. So now I walk away with only 70% of those groceries, and the guy with the EBT card now walks away with the other 30%. And where did the $40 on the EBT card come from? It came from my paycheck. So as I see it, the guy with the EBT card is stealing 30% of my family’s groceries.
To begin with, the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to tax and spend for foodstamp purposes.
More specifically, and given the remote possibility that some freepers and lurkers aren't aware of this, Justice John Marshall had officially clarified that Congress cannot tax and spend for ANYTHING which it essentially cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
So the irony about corrupt Democratic federal lawmakers arguing that likewise corrupt RINOs are trying to steal food from needy citizens is the following. Based on Justice Marshall's clarification of Congress's limited power to lay taxes, Congress is already wrongly stealing state revenues that could be used for state food stamp programs, stealing such revenues in the form of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes.
And that's just one major constitutional problem with the vote-winning Democratic federal food stamp program. The other problem is with the farm bill itself.
In more precise terms, the Supreme Court has historically clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate agriculture.
“From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added).”—Mr. Justice Roberts(?), United States v. Butler, 1936.
Unfortunately, patriots who have evidently never been taught the federal govenment's constitutionally limited powers are unsurprisingly not seeing the forest for the trees concerning Section 8-unjustifiable earmark spending in this likely constitutionally indefensible federal farm aid bill.
Local news coverage on the food stamp cut is atrociously biased leaning leftwards.
“Republicans don’t want to repeal low-income food assistance - they’re in favor of a more limited scope for a valuable program...” even though the Fed has NO Constitutional authority to steal from the taxpayer to ‘provide’ for another.
As one had stated, not word ONE about the fraud and abuse, let alone the misnomer of the ‘Farm Bill’.
cutting the amount that parasites steal from taxpayers is not stealing
Eliminate the program. Give the few people who actually need it some stamps. These stamps are only accepted for milk, flour, beans, bread, very basic staples. I bet 75% of the people on the rolls would remove themselves.
Isn’t a 1% cut in DC actually mean a 1% cut in the increase...baseline budgeting it’s called...