GOP FAIL: Farm/Welfare "reform" bill fails in house due to dems/freedom caucus

[Progressive Pessimist]

Republicans have been better at imploding major bills than passing them even with a trifecta. Talk about pissing away a golden opportunity.

Yet they'll still blame the Democrats.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Following rules committee action, the house is expected to authorize the postponement of the vote on the motion to reconsider until possibly as late as June 22. So there may be a substantial wait for a new attempt to pass this.

[Sir Mohamed]

LOL, sometimes the Freedom Caucus are useful idiots.

[pbrower2a]

Count on this: the GOP will be back with a farm bill nearly as insidious before the 2018 election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

[Indy Texas 🇺🇦🇵🇸]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

The Bible was written at a time when most people engaged in subsistence agriculture or artisanal craft work. In that context, working was simply a matter of good housekeeping. The idea of people selling very specialized labor to an entity engaged in provision of some good/service did not exist back then.

The situation many SNAP recipients face - of there being no job for them to do, or of the jobs they can do being too far away - is not one that existed in Biblical times.

To say nothing of all of the people who already do work and are still receiving SNAP because their employers do not pay them enough.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

Are you seriously going nuclear here and quoting such a nonsensical book in attempt to make a point?

[YE]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

Are you seriously going nuclear here and quoting such a nonsensical book in attempt to make a point?

Not everyone is an atheist. I am but you need to learn to tolerate other religious views.

[Person Man]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

Are you seriously going nuclear here and quoting such a nonsensical book in attempt to make a point?

Not everyone is an atheist. I am but you need to learn to tolerate other religious views.

Yeah. It is not good to belittle the faith or lack thereof of others.
That said, it was taken out of context from scripture but I can agree that positive rights in particular have no natural foundation, but there is a foundational social responsibility that everyone in society gets to live in some form. Death from starvation or medical neglect isn't really that good of a way to incentivize work. If there are those who are those who are there gaming the system, that is a different matter than whether government in general has a responsibility to protect from a state of nature in exchange for having to participate in society

[Fuzzy Bear]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you: that if any would not work, neither should he eat."  (2 Thessalonians 3:10)  That's a verse straight out of Scripture.  Now it's in a particular context; the context of Paul telling folks who stopped working their Earthly occupations on the basis that Jesus would be returning any second now that they needed to work as they were able and provide what they could so as not to be a drain on the rest of the Christian community (which, in the first century, was quite an interdependent community).  But God (through his Apostle Paul) voiced His judgment that people who can work ought to.  It's not the only place in Scripture that this sentiment is expressed.

God commands us to be charitable.  Almsgiving is Biblical.  And I think that, as a matter of public policy, our government SHOULD have a safety net that includes SNAP.  But it's not a RIGHT, and the idea that able-bodied persons who are able to work, but would refuse to do so in exchange for public aid is, quite frankly, flat-out wrong.  There are people in our society who are, to be blunt, just plain lazy.  I don't wish for them to starve to death, but requiring them to seek employment or perform some sort of public service work is really, truly, OK to require.  Yes, I know about the evils of corporate welfare, but that really is a separate conversation.

Are you seriously going nuclear here and quoting such a nonsensical book in attempt to make a point?

Not everyone is an atheist. I am but you need to learn to tolerate other religious views.

At least he had the intellectual honesty to refer to the Bible as a nonsensical book, instead of insisting that the Bible says what it clearly doesn't say, or make one argument leaning on Scripture while making another attacking it.  I'll give him that much.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense. If you were personally paying a homeless person to eat wouldn’t you want that person to make an effort to get out of their situation before writing a blank check? That just seems obvious to me. I’m not talking about cutting benefits (indeed I would be fine with reinvesting the savings from a work requirement back into social programs) but it is insane to me that one of the major parties opposes having any incentive to not be homeless.

The farm bill failing is also sad, could someone explain to me why Dems oppose that as well? I really don’t get Dem opposition to this at all. Couldn’t give less of a sh**t what the Freedom Caucus thinks.

Cheap labor is drying up...so you Republicans are trying to increase the labor supply by making all kinds of rules and regulations that whips people into working so business can keep wages low.

People have a right to eat.  You do not, nor does the government, have the right to peoples labor or time.  People don’t work for plenty of reasons and like a parent feeding a 17yo physically capable child as per the law...society has to feed the vagrants and everyone else.  And we should do so with a smile.

No, Snowguy, people DON'T have the right to eat.  That's a fact, not a political position.

This was the first thing I thought of when I see this:



You say this, but then you say in the same post that nobody, not even the laziest and most indolent, should starve. Which means that you do think that the right to eat is inalienable. So maybe it's a matter of phrasing, I dunno.

We live in a time when we have more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet (most famines are caused by the inability to pay, corruption, and other causes that extend beyond mere scarcity of food). This goes doubly true in America, perhaps the most food-abundant nation ever to exist on the face of this earth.

There are things that people could and should work for, but they shouldn't be things needed for basic survival. We can say that food is a right, and we have the ability to give everyone that food, regardless of whatever means-testing scheme is next cooked up by the House Republican caucus.

[Virginiá]

I think at the very least, if a person has a job or has a legitimate reason for not having one (retired, looking for work, in school, caring for someone, etc), they should be provided with at least the bare minimum for survival in terms of food, water and basic healthcare.

I don't consider myself a full blown socialist or anything either. I just think it's absurd that we could be this technologically advanced and have such resources but consign ourselves to such a greedy system that we'd let people starve just so certain groups can hoard their wealth and live lavishly. This belief isn't unpopular in America either, even if people may disagree on how to carry out such an idea. It'd be nice if we could make it work worldwide too.

Or we can just let people die because muh bootstraps and such. No worries!

[pbrower2a]

The prophet of the GOP is not Jesus; it is Ayn Rand. She has created her own moral universe, one in which a few people create the opportunities for the most deserving. The rest of us must meet the terms of those 'job creators' even if those people destroy jobs. Those 'job creators' simply don't get the appreciation that they deserve.

If a prole dislikes this, then it is his responsibility to create his own opportunity. Such is an ethos devoid of charity and thus grossly heretical to the Abrahamic religions, 

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

The prophet of the GOP is not Jesus; it is Ayn Rand. She has created her own moral universe, one in which a few people create the opportunities for the most deserving. The rest of us must meet the terms of those 'job creators' even if those people destroy jobs. Those 'job creators' simply don't get the appreciation that they deserve.

If a prole dislikes this, then it is his responsibility to create his own opportunity. Such is an ethos devoid of charity and thus grossly heretical to the Abrahamic religions, 

It is not just heretical to the Abrahamic religions. Just today on my many Wikipedia-reading sessions, I've been reading about the Sri Harmandir Sahib, the Golden Temple, which is the holiest site in Shikism. It is also the world's largest soup kitchen, maintaining the religion's tradition of the Langar:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But going back to the Abrahamic religions, the langar is also an institution in the Islamic Sufi sects:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[pbrower2a]

I expect Trump ideology to also offend Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, and Shinto beliefs as well. I can't think of anything consistent between Trump ideology and Confucian philosophy either. Paganism? At least the Greeks and Romans had philosophy to supplement their not-very-moral gods.  Wicca? They seem to have some room for charity.

The only people that I think might have something in common with Trump ideology are in the one religious 'tradition' in which I see absolutely no virtues: Satanism. Now that is a truly cruel, destructive, selfish set of beliefs. I got to read a bit of the Satanic Bible, enough to get to a passage in which Anton Szandor LaVey expressed the objective of Satanism: indulgence. At that I could close the disgusting book.

I recognize that civility and decency depend upon the antithesis of indulgence: restraint. Excess in one thing by an irresponsible elite ordinarily means poverty for others. Excess in personal life (sex, drink, food, thrill-seeking, gambling, consumerism) is bad for personal health and financial security.