NationStates Jolt Archive

Read this: http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111818110002569401&dt=20051118181100&w=RTR&coview=

Then this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1328285
Didn't fairness and decency once guide leaders?

Happy Thanksgiving

[/sarcasm]

I love your sig by the way.

Both links give me a "story not found" message.

ditto

Both links give me a "story not found" message.
For your convenience
House votes to cut $700 mln in food stamps


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to cut $700 million from the food stamp program, despite objections from antihunger groups complaining that estimates show some 235,000 people would lose benefits.

The House bill, which also trimmed other social programs for the poor in an effort to reduce federal spending by $50 billion, was narrowly approved 217-215.

House and Senate negotiators now must write a final, compromise version of legislation to pare federal spending over five years. The Senate did not touch food stamps in its version of a $35 billion budget-cutting bill.

Food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, help poor people buy food. Some 25.8 million Americans received food stamps in a program run by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss said through a spokesman that he was aiming for "zero" cuts in food stamps during talks with the House. As a committee chairman, the Georgia Republican would be a senior negotiator.

The final bill should abandon proposals to cut food stamps, urged Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center. "In nutrition, the Senate did the right thing," she said.

Bread for the World, another antihunger group, said the prospect of food stamp cuts "will make Thanksgiving bleaker for hundreds of thousands of hard-working families." It pointed to government estimates that 38.2 million Americans live in "food insecure" households that have trouble buying enough food.

House Republican leaders say the cuts are only a sliver of food stamp spending that runs more than $35 billion a year. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt said the cuts would focus the program on "the people you intended to help instead of just adding on at the edges."

In a statement, the White House said it supported the House "efforts to narrow overly broad exemptions from the food stamp program's eligibility limits." President (George W.) Bush proposed restrictions in February that are similar to the House-approved steps.

Under the House plan, roughly 165,000 people now automatically enrolled in food stamps when they get assistance from welfare programs would lose food stamps. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said these were mostly working families with children.

States would have the option to continue offering free school lunches to families cut off of food stamps. The Center on Budget said it was unlikely all states would do so.

The House proposal also would require 70,000 legal immigrants in most cases to wait seven years to become eligible for food stamps, rather than the current five years. That brings the total number of people affected by the plan to 235,000.

© Copyright Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of Reuters Ltd.

11/18/2005 18:11
RTR

The two links are the same, aren't they?

Anyways, it's obvious that if you have to cut spending in order to finance tax cuts and anti-missile defense systems, food stamps are the first to go...who needs food stamps afterall.
George doesn't know anyone who needs them...Dick's never met one who needs them...and Condi's never even seen a Black person before (Note: I'm not seriously implying that Black people are overly represented as welfare recipients, although they may very well be. I'm too lazy to check.)

I think the government should give themselves a pay cut before taking food away from people on welfare. People get rich sitting around taking bribes to vote for up coming votes based on their party, and not the people that voted them there.

And that part about free lunches is kinda upsetting too. Why take free lunches away? I think that if you require student enrollment, then you should pay for them to be there, includeing food costs.

and Condi's never even seen a Black person before [/COLOR]
Zing.

My apologies. This is the second link I meant to post:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1328285

The cost-of-living increase for members of Congress which will put pay for the rank and file at an estimated $165,200 a year marked a brief truce in the pitched political battles that have flared in recent weeks on the war and domestic issues.
Cost of living is $165,200 a year? Some one better get on giving those people working two minimum wage jobs to barely scrape by one hell of a pay raise.

For your convenience

With morality and compasion at an all time low, it's no surprise. The governmet is not only killing people in wars, but are also killing people at home to support those wars. Let's all thank Mr. Bush & Co. for yet another glorious achievement. Good night all!

And to think, people wonder why we bush-bash :rolleyes:

Didn't fairness and decency once guide leaders?
Oh please....that's old school politics, back when people voted according to issues and the things politicians did and said, rather than simply picking a team colour and backing the politicians who wear that colour no matter how abhorrent their behaviour, how opposed to one's ideology their actions, or much friggin damage is being done to the world and political system we jokingly call democracy....

decency and fairness indeed, how archaic, just do like the rest of us and pick a Superbowl team...oops sorry 'political party' and start coming up with sorry excuses why lying, cheating and starting wars are only bad things when the other team...oops sorry, party does it.:rolleyes: