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

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Facing universal Democratic opposition and opposition from a small number of moderates and some freedom caucus members who wanted a vote on the Goodlatte immigration bill beforehand, the house has just rejected, on a vote of 198-213, the farm bill, which was amended beforehand to require work requirements for SNAP.


https://twitter.com/sahilkapur?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
https://newrepublic.com/article/148461/farm-bill-everything-thats-wrong-congress
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/18/politics/farm-bill-house-agriculture-food-stamps-snap/index.html

[courts]

i'm glad this thing failed.i'm not entirely sure i like how it failed.but i'll take it

[Politician]

Thank you, ideologically pure House Freedom members!!!

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Vote summary: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll205.xml

Before anyone freaks, Ryan (WI) voted No for procedural reasons (allows him to bring up the bill for a re-vote at some later time)

[UncleSam]

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.

[RINO Tom]

Vote summary: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll205.xml

Before anyone freaks, Ryan (WI) voted No for procedural reasons (allows him to bring up the bill for a re-vote at some later time)

Thanks, Wulfric, I was about to freak.

[Hollywood756]

Can a Democrat explain to me why a work requirement to use social services isn’t just common sense.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/facts-on-food-stamp-work-requirements/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's one reason.

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's another. Basically, I think that we need an impenetrable safety net- that a safety net you can be legislated out of is no safety net at all. However, we already have work requirements on SNAP, and making them more stringent isn't about the budget, it's about the capitalist meritocracy narrative that republicans are feeding their base.

We need to adjust to a simple fact: work is no longer the thing that defines your dignity as a person.

[7,052,770]

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.

Because finding jobs is hard? Maybe the government could guarantee a neo-CCC-style job for all assistance recipients or something, as long as reasonable exceptions were made for disabled, caregivers, etc.

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Vote summary: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll205.xml

Before anyone freaks, Ryan (WI) voted No for procedural reasons (allows him to bring up the bill for a re-vote at some later time)

Okay I'm sure this is a really stupid question, but why is there a rule that the majority leader / speaker has to vote against something in order for it to be brought up again? I remember the same thing happened with a lot of Senate bills and Reid always was a no vote so that it could be brought up again.

[BBD]

Glad it failed. A lot of the focus has been on food stamps, but there was a lot of other terrible sh*t encased within it. Rollback of environmental regulations, such as oversight of pesticides, regulations on factory farms, and the Endangered Species Act...you name it.

[Hollywood756]

Vote summary: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll205.xml

Before anyone freaks, Ryan (WI) voted No for procedural reasons (allows him to bring up the bill for a re-vote at some later time)

Okay I'm sure this is a really stupid question, but why is there a rule that the majority leader / speaker has to vote against something in order for it to be brought up again? I remember the same thing happened with a lot of Senate bills and Reid always was a no vote so that it could be brought up again.

Take it up with Robert. The rule is that you must vote on the winning side of a vote (not a "no" vote,  strictly speaking, but this is usually only relevant when a speakers bill has failed to pass and he must vote no) to be able to call it back up for reconsideration. I would assume that it is the rule so that a person who voted on the losing side cannot waste a bunch of time on reconsiderations just to delay.

[Darthpi – Anti-Florida Activist]

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.

Because families that receive SNAP benefits included nearly 20 million children as of 2017, and making sure those children don't go hungry is the highest priority. The work requirements in this bill would apply to families with children, and that puts those children in unacceptable risk of going hungry through no fault of their own.

[Ban my account ffs!]

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.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

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.

The deal with the farm bill is that you guys leave food stamps and certain core social safety programs alone and in return you get your farm bill.  If you guys try to gut food stamps and related social safety net programs, then that's more than enough reason to oppose any farm bill you offer regardless of any other merits it may or may not have.  And if anyone thinks this sounds like holding the farm bill hostage, all I can say in response is: "Yeah, pretty much.  Not as fun when the shoe's on the other foot, is it?"

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

There should be no work requirements unless jobs are guaranteed, but that would be anti-capitalist.

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.

Also this.

[junior chįmp]

The GOP is a joke

[pbrower2a]

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.

Handicapped people. People in distressed areas. Administration of work requirements involves a bureaucratic mess that will cost more money than it is worth.

SNAP is anything but a blank check. It allows people to eat healthier than otherwise.

[Koharu]

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.

200000000000000000000000000000000000000

Handicapped people. People in distressed areas. Administration of work requirements involves a bureaucratic mess that will cost more money than it is worth.

SNAP is anything but a blank check. It allows people to eat healthier than otherwise.

Thank you. I can't believe no one mentioned disabilities. There are many people who are legally disabled and cannot work. They still deserve to eat.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And yet the GOP wonders why poor people think they can't afford to have more children (future laborers).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The freedom caucus saved us from some of Obama's terrible grand compromises.

[pbrower2a]

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.

200000000000000000000000000000000000000

Handicapped people. People in distressed areas. Administration of work requirements involves a bureaucratic mess that will cost more money than it is worth.

SNAP is anything but a blank check. It allows people to eat healthier than otherwise.

Thank you. I can't believe no one mentioned disabilities. There are many people who are legally disabled and cannot work. They still deserve to eat.

Or can work only for poverty pay, as I do.

[Tartarus Sauce]

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

[Ban my account ffs!]

THis is my super woke, makes you think comment of the day:

The sooner you realize our society... our civilization... all of it... is nothing but a giant, complicated pyramid scheme, the better.  Then we can go about building a better one.

[pbrower2a]

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

There's a big constituency for SNAP, and it isn't impoverished. It is big companies like Safeway, Kroger, Wal*Mart, Meijer, etc. that sell the groceries on SNAP. SNAP may have turned potential shoplifters into paying customers.   

[world.execute(me)]

i'm glad this thing failed.i'm not entirely sure i like how it failed.but i'll take it