House Republicans who voted against cutting food stamp program
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 11:25:48 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  House Republicans who voted against cutting food stamp program
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: House Republicans who voted against cutting food stamp program  (Read 1786 times)
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 19, 2013, 07:42:58 PM »

Shelley Moore Capito (WV-2)
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8)
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1)
Chris Gibson (NY-19)
Michael Grimm (NY-11)
Richard Hanna (NY-22)
Walter Jones (NC-3)
Peter King (NY-2)
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2)
Pat Meehan (PA-7)
Gary Miller (CA-31)
Chris Smith (NJ-4)
David Valadao (CA-21)
Frank Wolf (VA-10)
Don Young (AK-A/L)
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2013, 07:55:42 PM »
« Edited: September 20, 2013, 03:46:06 PM by Badger »

Watch this freeloading sloth in action.


Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2013, 08:21:29 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2013, 08:27:47 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2013, 08:33:14 PM »

Krazen is just overplaying his views here because he wants attention.

I'm glad these Republicans voted the right way.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2013, 08:35:30 PM »

I wonder why Walter Jones voted against the cuts.  I'm glad he did, but he's one of the most libertarian members of the House, IIRC.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2013, 09:15:24 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.

Nothing anecdotal at all. The Clinton requirements have been waived in favor of extended parasitic leeching.
Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2013, 09:24:56 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

In what is a curiosity, there have been large swarms of, err, 'disabled' declaring back pain or some other malady in order to siphon free cash from the public dole.


Thankfully, this is self-correcting. Sometime before Barry leaves office, Social Security disability will go belly up and kick in automatic spending cuts.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,130
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2013, 09:44:17 PM »
« Edited: September 24, 2013, 08:13:42 AM by Badger »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.

Nothing anecdotal at all. The Clinton requirements have been waived in favor of extended parasitic leeching.

Wrong again.
Logged
Indy Texas
independentTX
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,241
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.52, S: -3.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2013, 09:45:20 PM »

Here are the nay votes with some context about poverty in their districts (lifted from here):

Member (State-Dist) -- Poverty Rate (2011)* -- Households Using SNAP (2012)**
David Valadao (CA-21) -- 30.6% -- 41,653
Gary Miller (CA-31) -- 19.3% -- 31,895
Walter Jones (NC-3) -- 18.0% -- 39,822
Shelley Moore Capito (WV-2) -- 17.6% -- 34,926
Richard Hanna (NY-22) -- 16.2% -- 44,839
Michael Grimm (NY-11) -- 13.2% -- 37,638
Jeff Fortenberry (NE-1) -- 13.0% -- 20,975
Chris Gibson (NY-19) -- 12.4% -- 31,385
Frank LoBiondo (NJ-2) -- 12.4% -- 32,469
Don Young (AK-A/L) -- 10.5% --
Chris Smith (NJ-4) -- 9.2% -- 16,536
Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8) -- 6.2% -- 13,972
Frank Wolf (VA-10) -- 5.8% -- 8,466
Peter King (NY-2) -- 5.4% -- 19,116
Pat Meehan (PA-7) -- 5.2% -- 15,024

*The national poverty rate in 2011 was 15.9%, for comparison.
** The average congressional district had 36,261 households on SNAP in 2012.

These are members from high-poverty districts who voted to cut SNAP benefits:

Member (State-Dist) -- Poverty Rate (2011) -- Households Using SNAP (2012)
Hal Rogers (KY-5) -- 26.8% -- 80,057
Rodney Alexander (LA-5) -- 26.6% -- 60,146
Austin Scott (GA-8) -- 23.2% -- 53,960
Steve Pearce (NM-2) -- 23.2% -- 45,084
Bill Flores (TX-17) -- 22.9% -- 32,260
Tom Rice (SC-7) -- 22.8% -- 52,236
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-27) -- 22.1% -- 64,581
Steve Palazzo (MS-4) -- 22.1% -- 56,798
Rick Crawford (AR-1) -- 22.0% -- 53,959
Tom Cotton (AR-4) -- 21.4% -- 46,764
Paul Broun (GA-10) -- 21.2% -- 37,491
Mike Rogers (AL-3) -- 20.8% -- 46,747
Gregg Harper (MS-3) -- 20.8% -- 42,342
Richard Hudson (NC-8) -- 20.7% - 53,334
Markwayne Mullin (OK-2) -- 20.7% -- 51,181
John Fleming (LA-4) -- 20.5% -- 50,135
Jason Smith (MO-8) -- 20.5% -- 57,366
Paul Cook (CA-8) -- 20.4% -- 36,908
Martha Roby (AL-2) -- 20.1% -- 44,414
Jeff Denham (CA-10) -- 20.1% -- 33,151
Doc Hastings (WA-4) -- 20.1% -- 47,645
Steve Southerland (FL-2) -- 20.0% -- 43,156
James Lankford (OK-5) -- 20.0% -- 47,110

Logged
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2013, 09:57:41 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.

Nothing anecdotal at all. The Clinton requirements have been waived in favor of extended parasitic leeching.

Wrong again, idiot.

Awww, making up nonsensical garbage again? Not surprised. Even liberals admit the truth. Barry enabled these lazies.



 However, the 2009 stimulus law and waivers later allowed by the Obama administration have suspended those requirements in most states.

Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2013, 10:02:37 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.

Nothing anecdotal at all. The Clinton requirements have been waived in favor of extended parasitic leeching.

Wrong again, idiot.

Ya know what I don't get about krazen is that he's not creative enough to move past cliche epithets like "freeloaders" but he'll refer to these people as swarms, as if they're some sub-human type of insects.

It's really obvious that he's just trolling. The krazen who posts over at RRH says he's 26 but the one here has the maturity of a 6-year old. It's a really curious disconnect.
Logged
Badger
badger
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,190
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2013, 10:32:51 PM »

83% of all food stamp benefits go to households with children, the elderly, or the disabled. The fraud rate of the SNAP program is just 1%. And there are strict limits on how long the unemployed can receive benefits.

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

Krazen logic: Anecdotes are always representative of the norm, especially if it involves food stamp programs or voter fraud.

Or crimes committed by blacks.

Who was the idiot again that said 3/4 of the red avatars on the forum are worse than him? Roll Eyes
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2013, 11:59:48 PM »

Why does anyone respond to krazen? Also, how has he not said anything bad enough to get him banned by now?
Logged
barfbag
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.26, S: -0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2013, 03:11:05 AM »

Good for them. Food stamps are helpful to our economy and benefit the agricultural sector. If it wasn't for food stamps, many grocery stores wouldn't exist. There's a lot of jobs in grocery which are helped by the food stamp program. In turn, the income generated for grocery employees is used in other sectors of the economy as well as going back into the grocery stores. There's nothing wrong with requiring 100 hours of work each month. We should be allowing for faith based initiatives for responsible fatherhood with funds and state involvement because financial assistance is financial assistance no matter where it comes from and it could save our country as far as debt. An expansion of government such as a National Service Institution could be created. States should be providing vouchers for Section 8 public housing. The federal government should have more tax credits to promote home ownership in distressed areas and increase the earned income tax credit. Helping others is a joint responsibility between federal, state, and charitable organizations.
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,149
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2013, 05:23:36 AM »

RINOs
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,392
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2013, 07:10:57 AM »

They did the right thing. 
Logged
Beezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,902


Political Matrix
E: 1.61, S: -2.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2013, 09:08:31 AM »

I wonder why Walter Jones voted against the cuts.  I'm glad he did, but he's one of the most libertarian members of the House, IIRC.

What's more, why did he vote against the first farm bill, arguing that he could not support it due to the lack of cuts to food stamps.

Interesting to have Shelly Moore Capito in there. I guess this will only harden the resolve of the Club for Growth to find a proper primary challenger for her.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2013, 12:26:14 PM »

Rep. David Price sets the record straight on that dumb story krazen posted:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Cory
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,709


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2013, 01:07:15 PM »

Fox's airing of some California surfer is obviously a disingenuous attempt to portray all food stamp recipients as lazy bums, especially when the phrase "the new face of food stamps" is used. There's absolutely nothing representative about that guy.

And we all know who the "old face" of food stamps was for the GOP....

Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2013, 02:30:45 PM »

I wonder why Walter Jones voted against the cuts.  I'm glad he did, but he's one of the most libertarian members of the House, IIRC.

He was upset that foreign aid wasn't being touched while we were cutting "items that directly benefit Americans here at home." He did talk about how the vast majority were kids/seniors/disableds. Apparently the bill would also eliminate some mechanism he liked that let states administer benefits flexibly. It's also the wrong time to do so when the Eastern N.C. unemployment rate is over 10% (because of "this administration's gross mismanagement of the economy").

"The sad fact is that instead of cutting off a lifeline for millions of Americans, we could save equally as much money by eliminating foreign aid for just one year.  In my opinion, that is the approach we ought to be taking."
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2013, 06:42:52 PM »

Frank Wolf(VA-10) and Jeff Fortenberry(NE-1)voted against it? I thought these  guys were hard line conservatives. I thought Chris Smith(NJ-4) would vote for it too.  All the rest that voted no are in swing districts for Capito, Jones, and Don Young. Gary Miller is in D+5 district as well.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,324
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2013, 09:17:32 PM »

Frank Wolf(VA-10) and Jeff Fortenberry(NE-1)voted against it? I thought these  guys were hard line conservatives.

Wolf and Fortenberry are both in the Republican Main Street Partnership.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2013, 11:35:58 PM »

Looks like Gary Miller realized he's in a D+5 finally. Maybe he should tell Mike Coffman.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2013, 11:48:19 PM »

Looks like Gary Miller realized he's in a D+5 finally. Maybe he should tell Mike Coffman.
Well Coffman is in a D+1 not a D+5 to get technical about it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.