Politico: House Republicans plan massive cuts to programs for the poor

[Virginiá]

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/14/republicans-cuts-programs-food-stamps-welfare-veterans-238314

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[JA]

Such a proposal could pass the more conservative House, but it is DOA in the Senate. They are struggling to find moderate Republicans willing to sign off on their healthcare bill; now they want them to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, grow the military budget, and slash funding to programs for the poor? Republican Senators from states that are even remotely Senate swing states will never sign their name on that legislation if they value their careers, especially if they are up for reelection in 2018.

[publicunofficial]

Every House Republican is a f**king ghoul.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

mass murder disguised as ~fiscal responsibility~ part 16,789,516

[Virginiá]

Such a proposal could pass the more conservative House, but it is DOA in the Senate. They are struggling to find moderate Republicans willing to sign off on their healthcare bill; now they want them to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, grow the military budget, and slash funding to programs for the poor? Republican Senators from states that are even remotely Senate swing states will never sign their name on that legislation if they value their careers, especially if they are up for reelection in 2018.

Could you see less substantial cuts, but cuts nonetheless, passing? The trend so far does seem to be that the House passes something disgusting, the Senate basically throws it out the window and then in the end, Republicans get little of what they originally wanted, if anything. Now that tax cuts for the wealthy are on the table, I'm wondering if they can find a way to cut something, even if it doesn't meet their original goal.

Personally, I think that they will try and cut stuff, probably will fail and despite initial efforts and past whining about the debt/deficit when Obama was in office, they will pass large tax-but-temporary tax cuts funded by deficit spending anyway.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Does this fall under reconciliation, or would it need to pass filibuster?

[JA]

Such a proposal could pass the more conservative House, but it is DOA in the Senate. They are struggling to find moderate Republicans willing to sign off on their healthcare bill; now they want them to cut taxes for the rich and corporations, grow the military budget, and slash funding to programs for the poor? Republican Senators from states that are even remotely Senate swing states will never sign their name on that legislation if they value their careers, especially if they are up for reelection in 2018.

Could you see less substantial cuts, but cuts nonetheless, passing? The trend so far does seem to be that the House passes something disgusting, the Senate basically throws it out the window and then in the end, Republicans get little of what they originally wanted, if anything. Now that tax cuts for the wealthy are on the table, I'm wondering if they can find a way to cut something, even if it doesn't meet their original goal.

Personally, I think that they will try and cut stuff, probably will fail and despite initial efforts and past whining about the debt/deficit when Obama was in office, they will pass large tax-but-temporary tax cuts funded by deficit spending anyway.

I imagine the end result will be a symbolic victory more than anything. For example, remember Trump's proposed budget that had all those cuts to programs, such as the arts, that Republicans have pursued for years, yet they amounted to practically a tiny drop in the bucket? That seems the Republicans' best case scenario at this point. The end result will be, inevitably, a failure to do anything substantive about the ballooning debt, massive tax cuts, symbolic cuts to the government budget, increased defense spending, and further kicking the can down the road so they can scream at the next Democratic administration "but the deficit!"

[Matty]

mass murder disguised as ~fiscal responsibility~ part 16,789,516

Can you please explain how this is murder? Does this mean the government was guilty of mass murder before 1965? Do you really think that it is murder when government ceases to be a charity? Do you not understand that there are other ways of doing thing besides government?

This is like accusing people of wanting famine if they want the government to let private farmers grow grain.

[Virginiá]

Charities/other organizations can't pick up the slack - not even close. Either we all pool in collectively via the govt, or the poor end up suffering. If private individuals/organizations can effectively fill the void left by such changes, well, I'd have to see it to believe it.

[Badger]

mass murder disguised as ~fiscal responsibility~ part 16,789,516

Can you please explain how this is murder? Does this mean the government was guilty of mass murder before 1965? Do you really think that it is murder when government ceases to be a charity? Do you not understand that there are other ways of doing thing besides government?

This is like accusing people of wanting famine if they want the government to let private farmers grow grain.

This is NOT a choice of private charities and individuals OR government support. It hasn't been for close to a century. More to the point, if you have ever spoken to a food pantry or other private/church charity organization they will tell you they desperately can't carry more of the burden and want government to help with the many many people they don't have resources to assist. Many of them in fact rely on government grants and other funding for their support, and thus will likewise get dinged hard by these cuts.

Oh, and don't delude yourself into the fantasy upper income tax cuts will somehow create more charitable giving. Every study ever done of the Reagan tax cuts shows charitable giving remained essentially flat. Furthermore, the rich give a disproportionatly small share of their income to charity compared to the poor and middle class (much of a "there but for the grace of God go I" syndrome). To top it off, the Rich's charitable giving tends to concentrate in areas the build prestige among their peers, such as art, the theatre, etc.. Thatch fine and important, but services for the poor, hungry, homeless, etc. tend to get short shrift.

And yes, malnourishment kills, even in 2017 America.

[JA]

mass murder disguised as ~fiscal responsibility~ part 16,789,516

Can you please explain how this is murder? Does this mean the government was guilty of mass murder before 1965? Do you really think that it is murder when government ceases to be a charity? Do you not understand that there are other ways of doing thing besides government?

This is like accusing people of wanting famine if they want the government to let private farmers grow grain.

This is NOT a choice of private charities and individuals OR government support. It hasn't been for close to a century. More to the point, if you have ever spoken to a food pantry or other private/church charity organization they will tell you they desperately can't carry more of the burden and want government to help with the many many people they don't have resources to assist. Many of them in fact rely on government grants and other funding for their support, and thus will likewise get dinged hard by these cuts.

Oh, and don't delude yourself into the fantasy upper income tax cuts will somehow create more charitable giving. Every study ever done of the Reagan tax cuts shows charitable giving remained essentially flat. Furthermore, the rich give a disproportionatly small share of their income to charity compared to the poor and middle class (much of a "there but for the grace of God go I" syndrome). To top it off, the Rich's charitable giving tends to concentrate in areas the build prestige among their peers, such as art, the theatre, etc.. Thatch fine and important, but services for the poor, hungry, homeless, etc. tend to get short shrift.

And yes, malnourishment kills, even in 2017 America.

*Applauds*

[Kingpoleon]

We cannot hurt the working poor, the drug addicted, and the mentally ill. If saying this makes me fiscally irresponsible, so be it. When we hurt the most vulnerable in our society, we show ourselves to be people who do bad despite knowing better.

[TDAS04]

Inexcusably heartless.

[KingSweden]

We cannot hurt the working poor, the drug addicted, and the mentally ill. If saying this makes me fiscally irresponsible, so be it. When we hurt the most vulnerable in our society, we show ourselves to be people who do bad despite knowing better.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

We cannot hurt the working poor, the drug addicted, and the mentally ill. If saying this makes me fiscally irresponsible, so be it. When we hurt the most vulnerable in our society, we show ourselves to be people who do bad despite knowing better.

You are so full of love. Kingpoleon 2040

[Kingpoleon]

I didn't expect such a response to that post.

Anyway, I wonder if the Democratic populists might reach out to Trump on this and healthcare. It's the best thing they could do to advance their agenda.

[All Along The Watchtower]

mass murder disguised as ~fiscal responsibility~ part 16,789,516

Can you please explain how this is murder? Does this mean the government was guilty of mass murder before 1965? Do you really think that it is murder when government ceases to be a charity? Do you not understand that there are other ways of doing thing besides government?

This is like accusing people of wanting famine if they want the government to let private farmers grow grain.

Yes, let's let all those right-wing Christian "charities" be responsible for the well-being of single mothers, homeless LGBT individuals, women living below the poverty line who are seeking abortions out of utter desperation, undocumented immigrants and their children, destitute Syrian refugees - shall I go on?

[progressive85]

Every House Republican is a f**king ghoul.

Satan would be proud.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I didn't expect such a response to that post.

Anyway, I wonder if the Democratic populists might reach out to Trump on this and healthcare. It's the best thing they could do to advance their agenda.

> implying T***p or Ryan would listen to anyone remotely left-wing on anything

[SATW]

Every single time we try to make any headway on spending cuts the left accuses of us actually being murderers.

It's time to tone out the drama queens and get to work. Social Security should be, at a minimum, partially privatized for people currently under 40. The retirement age, at a minimum should be raised to 67.

Medicare needs to be reformed in order to save it long term. If that means making some short term cuts, then I support it.

A lot of these anti-poverty programs have not worked and likely will continue to not work. More liberal and progressive cities have continuously funneled money to poorer communities on the local and state levels and it has very rarely yielded the results they would like to see.

This piece from the Foundation for Economic Education sums up a lot of why the War on Poverty has failed:

https://fee.org/articles/why-the-war-on-poverty-failed/

Specifically this line rings true on how the debate on poverty is handled by liberals:

"For the activists, welfare programs did not involve complex relationships and intractable problems about which honest people could disagree. They were simple moral imperatives, and anyone who opposed them was seen as selfish and insensitive. (This dogmatic view has by no means disappeared from so-called liberal circles.)"

I also like this section (I'm sure I'll get called a heartless demon, but whatever):

"The simple economic theory of poverty led to a single underlying principle for welfare programs. Since the needy just lacked goods and services to become productive members of the community, it followed that all you had to do was give them these things. You didn’t have to see that they stopped engaging in the behavior that plunged them into neediness. You didn’t have to ask them to apply themselves, or to work, or to save, or to stop using drugs, or to stop having babies they couldn’t support, or to make any other kind of effort to improve themselves. In other words, the welfare programs the war-on-poverty activists designed embodied something-for-nothing giving, or what we usually call 'handouts.'"

This is not to say that most poor people are like this (because they aren't) but to simplistically imply that we can just throw money at diverse, impoverished populations is ridiculous and dangerous.

There is no such thing as an average poor person, just like there's no such thing as an average middle class person. There is a ton of diversity within income brackets. Different reasons why they are poor or why they aren't poor.

I agree, private charity isn't enough on its own to bring people out of poverty (which goes against the conclusion of the article I linked but I'm under no obligation to agree with every point). Just like anti-poverty programs fail to do the same.

There needs to be a nuance. A mix of personal responsibility, a mix of private charity, and a limited but decently funded set of programs that aim to help people get out of short-term situations instead of throwing money at them.

Just like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, imo, has failed and it failed for similar reasons: The federal government and overzealous/ambitious legislators try to simplify the problem. Each State knows its problems better than the federal government. Those state and local governments are the best equipped to attempt to solve a lot of these issues, I think.

More importantly, the state and local governments can more easily see if these programs are working or not. Sometimes certain people are less motivated to do anything about their financial situation, regardless of whether or not they get government aid. There has to be standards for certain programs, to ensure that people are actually bettering their lives (more importantly: aren't wasting taxpayers' money).

Just allowing people to qualify for programs or government aid and than not caring if they follow through or not is a horrendous way to implement any sort of policy.

This article lists some examples of how government programs failed to even abide by their own set of standards, I'll just talk about one in specifics.

1. Manpower Development Research Corporation:  "To implement this goal, attendance standards were announced: no more than three unexcused absences or five unexcused latenesses in the first ten weeks of training class. Reporter Ken Auletta attended one of these courses in New York City and discovered that even these modest rules were not being applied. Students were allowed to come and go as they wished, even to sleep or read the newspaper in class.6 The trainer in charge explained that if the rules were applied, 'we’d lose just about everyone in the class.'" This mentality is exactly why anti-poverty programs fail. The program shouldn't aim to keep a room full but to only get people who actually want to lift themselves out of poverty




Also, Some Democrats need to realize that accusing people of being satanic or murderers is not going to get anyone to change their opinions. Grow the f**k up and actually argue for what policy alternatives you believe in. You are not above debating the other side.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Every single time we try to make any headway on spending cuts the left accuses of us actually being murderers.

y'alls'd look a lot more credible with your cowardly-ass "it's just about ~fiscal responsibility~" arguments if y'alls didn't, at the same goddamn time, keep ballooning the u.s.'s hilariously indefensible defense budget
just saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now that's some top-grade irony right there

[SATW]

Every single time we try to make any headway on spending cuts the left accuses of us actually being murderers.

y'alls'd look a lot more credible with your cowardly-ass "it's just about ~fiscal responsibility~" arguments if y'alls didn't, at the same goddamn time, keep ballooning the u.s.'s hilariously indefensible defense budget
just saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

now that's some top-grade irony right there

1. I have always stated I supported streamlining the defense budget. I oppose making massive cuts, but there are a bunch of really small cuts here and there that would add up if both parties would have some nuance on this topic. The Military doesn't need a new toy for each branch every year and we really need to rewrite how the allocation of funds work. I've talked to a few veterans and they told me a lot of the time the military will spent its entire budget out of fear of losing amounts of money in the next fiscal year that are equivalent to their unused amount for the current fiscal year. This is not an efficient way to allocate or cut funds.  There are ways we can maintain a large and robust defense budget while also making logical and tangible cuts to its portion as well without damaging military readiness. So, your comment doesn't apply to me.

2. What are the odds that you barely read (if any of it at all) anything I wrote in my "sociopathic" writing? like 1%? Also, there is no irony in me calling for normal conversations. I don't lash out at people and I don't compare opposing viewpoints to satan or murderers.

So, besides being edgy, did you accomplish anything in this thread?

[Green Line]

Support only if these cuts are offset with dollar for dollar increases in defense spending.

[catographer]

This is 50% of why I'm a Democrat. I think gov't should help poor people! Other 50%, GOP is culturally out of step with me.

[SATW]

Heritage Foundation had an interesting report from 2014 that discussed the War on Poverty's ineffectiveness, for those who actually care about discussing these issues.

http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years

"Amenities", "Poverty, Nutrition, and Hunger" and the "Housing and Poverty" sections are particularly interesting sections that could stimulate debate.