Skip to main content

Today, the House passed the 2014 Farm Bill 251 to 166.

162 Republicans voted for it. 63 voted against it.

103 Democrats voted against it. 89 voted for it.

The Farm Bill contains $8.7 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. This translates to a $90 per month cut to beneficiaries. This cut follows November's $5 billion cut from the program, the "hunger cliff" that the Democrats themselves created.

The deal also restricts the USDA from "advertising the SNAP program through [TV], radio and billboard advertisements."

Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz all voted for the bill.

14 members of the Progressive Caucus voted for it: Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Corinne Brown (FL-05), Andre Carson (IN-07), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Sam Farr (CA-20), Lois Frankel (FL-22), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Ben Lujan (NM-03), Rick  Nolan (MN-08), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), and Peter Welch (VT).

Two gubernatorial candidates--Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) and Mike Michaud (ME-02) voted for it.

Three senatorial candidates--Bruce Braley (IA-01), Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01), and Gary Peters (MI-09)--voted for it.

Here is the list of the 89 Democrats who voted for the bill:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Bruce Braley (IA-01)
Corinne Brown (FL-05)
Julia Brownley (CA-26)
Cheri Bustos (IL-17)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
Lois Capps (CA-24)
John Carney (DE)
Andre Carson (IN-07)
Kathy Castor (FL-14)
Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
John Dingell (MI-12)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Bill Enyart (IL-12)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Lois Frankel (FL-22)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Tulsi Gabbard (HI-02)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
John Garamendi (CA-03)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Alcee L. Hastings (FL-20)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Jared Huffman (CA-02)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Dan Kildee (MI-05)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Anne Kuster (NH-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Lipinski (IL-03)
Dave Loebsack (IA-02)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (NM-01)
Ben Lujan (NM-03)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Doris Matsui (CA-06)
Betty McCollum (MN-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Jerry McNerney (CA-09)
Mike Michaud (ME-02)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Gloria Negrete McLeod (CA-35)
Rick Nolan (MN-08)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
David Price (NC-04)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13)
Bobby Scott (VA-03)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Mike Thompson (CA-05)
Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Paul Tonko (NY-20)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)
Tim Walz (MN-01)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Pete Welch (VT)

Weren't Democrats supposed to be focusing on inequality now? Somehow the party leadership didn't get the message.

Originally posted to Liberty Equality Fraternity and Trees on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:33 AM PST.

Also republished by Hunger in America, In Support of Labor and Unions, DKos Pennsylvania, and KosAbility.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (224+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, raboof, Azazello, dkmich, dizzydean, JeffW, Nada Lemming, Mr Robert, no way lack of brain, Free Jazz at High Noon, CenPhx, YucatanMan, jbob, StateofEuphoria, Major Tom, cardboardurinal, middleagedhousewife, Sam Hill, thenekkidtruth, aliasalias, Hayate Yagami, cotterperson, spooks51, FindingMyVoice, CTDemoFarmer, One Pissed Off Liberal, allenjo, 3rdOption, anodnhajo, fumie, Mother Mags, salmo, JVolvo, CanyonWren, devis1, Gorette, SherwoodB, turn blue, JayRaye, Barbara Marquardt, PatConnors, Big River Bandido, blueoasis, RFK Lives, dclawyer06, expatjourno, psychodrew, kevinpdx, HeyMikey, jbsoul, JosephK74, MJ via Chicago, triv33, zerelda, ShowMeMoBlue, Jakkalbessie, 420 forever, greenbastard, pyegar, slowbutsure, Most Awesome Nana, librarisingnsf, ChemBob, Ice Blue, peachcreek, john07801, WisePiper, blue jersey mom, diffrntdrummr, hotheadCA, kurious, Aaa T Tudeattack, Johnny Q, Shockwave, cybrestrike, Byron from Denver, Leftcandid, cosette, angel d, snoopydawg, hangingchad, thankgodforairamerica, greycat, delver rootnose, kacemo, amparo fan, Lost and Found, lostinamerica, PhilJD, WheninRome, la urracca, HCKAD, ratcityreprobate, Dem Beans, petulans, Rolfyboy6, peacestpete, Polly Syllabic, IndieGuy, Chaddiwicker, irmaly, shanikka, Matt Z, Yo Bubba, Ezekiel in Exile, Pithy Cherub, number nine dream, cybersaur, allergywoman, quill, xynz, flowerfarmer, Danno11, RebeccaG, royce, HedwigKos, rubyclaire, maryabein, Nannyberry, Hirodog, JML9999, sciguy, on the cusp, Medium Head Boy, LaFeminista, broths, CitizenOfEarth, exNYinTX, Librarianmom, vacantlook, 3goldens, stevie avebury, GeorgeXVIII, Miss Jones, Got a Grip, divineorder, alice kleeman, dharmafarmer, NBBooks, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, Alumbrados, LiberalVol, johnnygunn, mslat27, Teiresias70, temptxan, absdoggy, jck, lotlizard, Ishmaelbychoice, jplanner, worldlotus, glitterscale, run around, MKSinSA, Chi, Jazzenterprises, Joe Hill PDX, geebeebee, greengemini, markthshark, wader, LSmith, rapala, roses, Throw The Bums Out, democracy inaction, DawnN, BlueMississippi, JesseCW, unfangus, eeff, p gorden lippy, indie17, Woody, vigilant meerkat, where4art, dewley notid, Heavy Mettle, terabytes, edwardssl, wasatch, Ginny in CO, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Ignacio Magaloni, BusyinCA, Involuntary Exile, jazzmaniac, Patango, joeschmeaux, dharmasyd, chimene, LillithMc, Colorado is the Shiznit, kurt, ArthurPoet, mofembot, seeking justice, koNko, DeadHead, politicalceci, This old man, AlRod, marina, davidincleveland, Jim P, ladybug53, hoof32, sentinalnode, Maverick80229, churchylafemme, Aunt Martha, flitedocnm, oldrwizr, maybeeso in michigan, raincrow, Alice Olson, misshelly, cany, Says Who, LaughingPlanet, skyounkin, buckhorn okie, Teenygozer
  •  My Congressman, Bob Brady (PA-01) (15+ / 0-)

    may be an old school Philly machine politician, but he's pretty consistent on making the right vote on these issues.

    To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

    by dizzydean on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:47:09 AM PST

    •  My parents' district, too (7+ / 0-)

      That's my parents' district, too. They were just redistricted from Fattah to Brady because of a weird redrawing of the maps.

    •  Sorry but — whole diary premise a nonstarter (15+ / 0-)

      There are few more militant advocates for food assistance and feeding the hungry than my congresswoman Marcia Fudge. She's also extremely informed, knowledgable about realities of negotiations and what would be likely to happen to the hungry should this bill continue to fail and fail and fail.

      I think she voted correctly, as much as the final result was less than ideal. I stand with her totally, and believe this is wasted focus when we should be looking to flipping the House and electing more people like her so she can do what she really wants to do: increase access to food and decrease hunger.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:50:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is why Democrats fail repeatedly. (86+ / 0-)
        I think she voted correctly...
        Because we know that the Democrats cannot make a stand, demand the attention of the nation, with the President at the helm during his much publicized SOTU address, call out the cravenness and cruelty of the Republicans who want these cuts, and use the massive popular opinion that's already on the side of Progressives (on this and dozens of other economic issues) to shame the Republicans into backing down.

        Just like the Republicans collapsed like the bags of toxic hot air that they are during the government shutdown, once public opinion predictably turned on them.

        Yeah, the worst thing that Democrats could do is tell the Republicans "NO" and then go out and get the public on their side WHEN THE PUBLIC IS ALREADY ON THEIR SIDE.

        Yep, that's a correct vote all right. As long as Progressive Democrats cede control to Corporatist Democrats, it's the perfect vote.

        "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

        by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:01:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  No (6+ / 0-)

          With all due respect, please remember that it is Democrats who wiped out the Great Society as a necessary step toward ending the New Deal,  AND Bill Clinton was the first president to target Social Security, specifically the disabled (note: We pay into Social Security retirement AND disability). Clinton/Gore gave us 8 yrs of Bush, since there was no way that the poor could vote for Gore. Republicans are keenly aware that if Dems agree to slash meager food aid to our elderly, disabled and poor, millions again will withhold their votes, and the next administration will be Republican.

          •  Which post are you saying "No" to? Looks like you (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alice Olson

            agree with DHFabian (to whom you replied), and disagree with 3rdOption.

            "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both." - Justice Louis Brandeis

            by flitedocnm on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:30:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  farm bill (0+ / 0-)

          When did Bobby Scott of Va. switch parties? Do you know what the term personal integrity means Mr. Scott?

      •  If you want to flip the House... (77+ / 0-)

        ...the Democrats should stop voting like Republicans.

        I do not believe this was the best Democrats could do. President Obama refused to cave to Republican obstructionism and demanded a clean debt ceiling bill, no pragmatic compromise. The same thing could have been done here, but too many people let Dems off the hook for horrible votes like this because the Democrats are better than Republicans: but if you don't have enough food to eat, who the hell cares whether it is a Democrat or Republican who takes away your SNAP benefits?

        You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” --George Bernard Shaw, JFK, RFK

        by CenPhx on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:02:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  If you want to flip the House (6+ / 0-)

          you have to actually vote for Democrats, not take you ball and go home because the minority Dems cannot overcome a Republican majority.

          •  There is a difference .... (38+ / 0-)

            ....between not overcoming the republicans and aiding them in their efforts.

            This bill should have passed with NO DEMOCRATIC votes.  Or at least no votes from non farm country democrats like Lapinski or Duckworth.

            We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

            by delver rootnose on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:58:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Flipping the house with Corporatist Democrats... (26+ / 0-)

            ...will make all of our wealth disparity exploding economic policies worse, not better.

            Some people simply cannot get their heads around the fact that most of the Democratic leadership, and a majority of Democrats in Congress are corrupt.

            Electing more of them is not a solution, it's cutting your own throat while cheering for your "team". Just like "conservative" voters do with Republicans.

            Duped loyalists. They're what's for dinner.

            "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

            by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:21:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  If they want my vote, they can fucking earn it. (19+ / 0-)

            It's about damn time the Democratic establishment and their cheerleaders get that fact through their fucking skulls.  If you want someone's vote, earn it.

            •  They need to lose votes during a PRIMARY. (23+ / 0-)

              This is the Corporatist trick:

              • Get elected as a Progressive,
              • Operate in office as a loyal Corporatist,
              • Demand no primary challenge because it might cause the seat to be lost to a Republican in the General,
              • Profit.

              It really is just that simple.

              And highly educated, intelligent DKos'ers fall for it over and over, and loyalists demand that we continue falling for it.

              GO HILLARY '16!!!

              "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

              by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:04:12 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So you're not voting now? Thanks, that helps. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Look, I do not want any cuts in food stamps either but the fact is that the cuts are only a small fraction of what the Republicans wanted. I understand that many will suffer to save what I'm told is only 0.04% of the budget through these cuts. But that's a symptom. Focus on the disease.

              One can demand nothing but 'I'm-only-supporting-100%-of-what-I-want-or-piss-off' purity, which is what makes the neocons and the teabaggers exactly what they are, or, one can understand that politics is about compromise. And as far as I can tell the Democrats came waaaaay out on top on the farm bill which the Republican house couldn't get passed a couple of months ago. This is 2014, an election year. If we look mostly like heroes by getting the farm bill passed in rural red states (with most of the food stamp cuts removed) we possibly prevent losing the Senate AND maybe having a shot at taking back the House. Both very unlikely prospects this time around with so many vulnerable seats that we hold in red regions.

              If you really want no cuts in food stamps, we need to do both of those things or it will get MUCH worse in 2015. People are so sick of Congress doing nothing that for our side to be moving legislation through will weaken a GOP on the ropes. Don't forget, in year six of a presidency, that party's side almost always loses. But we have bit of a perfect storm working against the GOP divisiveness and clear support of the 1%. But we won't win if you're going to give the people more of the my-way-or-the-highway GOP-like bullshit.

              You only get to own the highway by running both Congress and the White House. With LARGE majorities. Otherwise we must compromise somewhere.

              •  This bill isn't exactly a compromise. (5+ / 0-)

                Since it was introduced last summer, the GOP pulled a few innovative stunts with it, which I wrote about in diaries at the time.

                There was a hint of what was coming in a Congressional Research Service Report: The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits (CRS Report R42591), that came out last year.

                The benefit amounts were calculated differently in 16 states and DC via a link with the Low Income Heating Assistance Program.  The streamlined application processing was implemented almost exclusively in blue states and the Republicans decided they had a problem with it. They say it's fraudulent.

                They expect to save $8 billion from 850,000 beneficiaries that they think may have been overpaid in the past, though there's no direct evidence of it.

                The affected recipients will have to show copies of their utility bills and the program will have to eliminate the streamlined paperless process and scrutinize heating bills to make sure they don't pay out more than the eligibility standards allow.

                This is like another variation of extortion and the Democrats got scared and caved.  I posted a diary about it yesterday.

                Strange that not many people know how this all came about.

                There is no existence without doubt.

                by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:01:45 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Shame. That it matters more which party (4+ / 0-)

                scored the most points on a given bill, than it matters that they just cut $90.00 per month to families in poverty.

                You think of it as a small fraction of what the repugs want if that makes you comfortable. I am guessing you've never gone hungry. Certainly no one in our congress has or they wouldn't be playing fast and loose with other people's food.

                •  It's not about points. It's about stopping the GOP (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  If you're not paying attention to what the common voter, largely unschooled about our political system, sees and what will bring out our voters, change the minds of some independents, and perhaps, discourage Republicans from voting in great numbers this year. I've been down to $0.27 in my pocket and a quarter tank of gas left in my car.

                  Of course it matters, but even if the farm bill didn't pass they will still try to cut food stamps in some other way and they will try to increase the percentage of cuts. But if American's don't see Obama and the Democrats making something happen in policy and politics this year, they will vote against us and we'll have Obama with a Republican congress. It's only by wresting more control away from them that we will start feeding the needing, and housing them and educating them. I do not want to see perfect policy purity getting in the way of stopping the GOP.

                  And the cruelty of the GOP, visible to more and more people in this country, is the only real wedge we have right now to save the poor. To get the numbers to turn against these assholes. And by the way, this bill has not passed the Senate yet so it might still be blocked. But passing the bill only provides more rope to hang the GOP with. Only that, in the end, will feed more people.

                  •  would be nice.... (7+ / 0-)

                    ...if the Democrats were even trying to stop the GOP, but they are not.  They are not even fighting because they know people like you will vote for them if they just point at the republicans and say 'it could be worse'

                    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

                    by delver rootnose on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:25:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The r's tactic seems to be (4+ / 0-)

                      picking a fight over anything, or nothing at all. They then win concessions...60%,20%, 3% of what they want, even if they do nothing but gum up the works. The Dems get to say they "saved" 80%, 20%, whatever, of some program or bill and call it a victory. Then the r's come back 2,5,10 years later and do the same thing and whack off another chunk. It's been happening since Reagan. Dems today have seen this tactic work for 30 years, and they know when the r's are in power again they'll get steamrolled. The only faction with any fire in them are the Progressives, and they are the most marginalized wing of the Democratic party.

                      •  OK. So how do we get 100% of everything we want? (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't disagree that the progressives are marginalized, although I would argue that for the first time in about 30 years people are starting to consider the progressive perspective. At the very least it's being presented in the media and there are even Sunday talk shows which mention it somewhat.

                        But this argument that we MUST have 100% of all things we want is a fools errand. Again, if we ever get back to a large majority in both houses, running the White House, and having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court at the same time, we might get SOME of that for one cycle, maybe 4 years.

                        But making that your plan is the same lunatic fantasy which drives the Tea Party to expect to get anything done in government without any compromise! And compromise means someone is going to suffer. Sorry, that's the way of the world.

                        Tell me how we get to the large majority by passing no legislation because we aren't getting everything we want. Have you not noticed how fabulously that's worked for the Tea Party??

                        Please, tell me how we do it. Give me a specific plan for all this wonderfulness you evidently see within our grasp.

                    •  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ YES! (6+ / 0-)

                      The system is broken. Both sides are ranching us like livestock.

                      Feinstene is my senator for crying out loud. I don't know what she supports besides spying on every single american, but it's not the middle class, certainly.

                      •  I believe she supports war with Iran. (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Noodles, CenPhx, buckhorn okie

                        So there's that.

                        "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                        by 3rdOption on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:39:32 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Who do we have lined up to replace Feinstein? (0+ / 0-)

                        I'm not a fan of hers either, but tell me what Republican you'd prefer over her? Or who is going to be our new Super Senator? Do you spend time like me telling her she's not doing enough, and praising her every once in a while when she does do the right thing?

                        So how do we fix the broken system? Without magic wands. Tell me, please.

                        •  Noodles you suck (0+ / 0-)

                          Noodles you suck

                        •  I write to that woman constantly and tell her (0+ / 0-)

                          exactly what I think of her oath breaking, constitution destroying, war mongering ways.

                          And I get answers back. Generally more pap and propaganda prompting me to cut and paste her whole bullshit letter into mine, and tell her why she is full of crap. This happens about once a month. I recently told her (meaning her staff) not to write back to me anymore because it was just to insulting to deal with. I don't expect them to listen to me, or respect my wishes as I don't have any money. I'll keep writing anyway. When the whole democracy goes completely to shit, I need to know for myself it wasn't complacency on my part.

                          Does that answer your question?

                          I would prefer no republican over her. She is plenty republican enough as it is. Can't tell you who will be the new Senator, only that I am caring less and less.

                          Fix the broken system? I don't think we can. If I knew what to do I would have done it. This society sucks, and I want out but there is no where to go. If I could take my family and get off this planet before it becomes a toxic furnace, I would do that too.

                          Now, I have answered your questions. You can now proceed to tear up my answers and make yourself feel even more superior than you already do. Have at it Noodles. But it won't make you suck any less than you do. Right BeeCause?

                          •  I'm not superior. I'm about solutions. (0+ / 0-)

                            I agree about Feinstein, but until progressives can groom somebody better, we're stuck with her. She changed her voice on the filibuster and is finally having problems with aspects of the NSA so perhaps there is a chance we can pressure her to leave office a little bit better than when she started. But seriously, we need a better replacement who can win her seat when it comes up next time. That would be a small fix to the system.

                            By the way, they are always small fixes. Big fixes come once a generation; all the others are many, many incremental ones. Se my other response to you about Teddy and Franklin and how repairs to the system have been put in place and how they are done. They are hard.

                            You are aware, I assume, that in the sixth year of nearly every administration, the other side gets the big victories in Congress? That we have vulnerable Senate seats in unfriendly red states to win (again, as in 2012) and a gerrymandered all to hell 'pub favored map in the House? And yet, the GOP is in deep disarray with a lot of the voters more aligned with fearmongered ideology than the people the Kochs and Chambers of Commerce want to win? Did you see Kos'point about them being on the wrong side of the issues the other day? How the ever horrible Cathy McMorris Rodgers responds to Obama that "Republicans believe health care choices should be yours, not the governments?" and then the next day Huff Post puts up the headline "House Republicans Pass Sweeping Anti-Abortion Bill"?

                            Really. We have some slim chance that maybe the outrage of people who are tired of this shit MIGHT be persuaded to come out in numbers enough this year to hold the Senate and take a few more House seats. It smells a little like 2006 to me where we have a chance to take the House. Maybe. A long shot but possible. McConnell is in a turtle-neck to neck race right now with his Democratic challenger in Kentucky. Before his Tea Party challenge takes place. We will probably get much of the food-stamp deprived vote this November. (an ugly thought yet true) But what about all the other people we need to vote these fuckers out of power? Are we going to motivate them? There is no change in government without sucking it up and dealing with usually less than ideal situations.

                            But step by step by step by step...

                          •  That is all fantastic, and I hope you are correct. (0+ / 0-)

                            I will pray for the jobless in the Midwest polar vortex with their food stamps cut to survive the winter while this game get splayed at their expense.

                          •  Send them money instead. n/t (0+ / 0-)
                          •  Sorry. I'm really pissed off about the situation 2 (0+ / 0-)

                            The whole thing is making me surly. I have a couple good friends who until recently were on food stamps. And I believe that prayer does so much less than activism so that makes me a bit annoyed as well. But if budgets don't get passed people get nothing. This will not be the end to food stamp cuts short of getting the 'pubs out of power so they can't do any harm.

                            Your heart is certainly in the right place.

                          •  apology accepted. (0+ / 0-)

                            I recently had surgery for a workers comp injury that has left me partially crippled. My second income has been curtailed because of the injury. The people at the regular job that injured me just keep piling on more work.

                            My genius husband can't get a job because of his age.

                            I was sending money to the people who just got thrown off of food stamps, in the form of taxes, which I was happy, happy, happy to pay so that people who need help can get it.

                            Just like I have paid in to social security insurance and medicare and unemployment and local schools etc., since 16 years of age. That was a long damn time ago, Noodles. That money was paid for those people's benefit because there is a price for living in a civilized country, and I am willing to pay it.

                            I am God damned pissed about working myself crippled so that politicians can take the money hostage instead of feeding the people that need to be fed. Those people really are in God's hands, and better that than in the hands of politicians, or mine for that matter, now that my elbow is blown out. I might drop them.

                    •  So who are you voting for then? (0+ / 0-)

                      The Justice League of America? If you're saying let's not vote for any Democrats short of raising FDR from the grave, I'd say take your concern trolling elsewhere. Give some practical advice, OK? This is a site for trying to change a political party, not making solicitations for a pity party.

                  •  IN the mean time, how 'bout the voters that die? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    3rdOption, buckhorn okie

                    With one job for every three people, chemical spills poisoning the water, polar vortexes, and now food stamps cut a second time, you are highly likely to lose voters. Literally.

                     And the family members and people who survive all that are not going to be real supportive of any aspect of our society in general, And certainly not for the assholes that voted to do that to them as a strategic maneuver.

                    I think maybe you are not paying attention. These politicians have built entire careers based on partisan politics, and the fact that there will always be a war to take back congress from one party or the other. They, and their lobbyists and supporters make a huge amount of money off of the conflict between the parties. There is no incentive for the war between them to ever be over.

                    Barbara Boxer is the ideal career politician. SHe generates a huge amount of money off of women's rights. She has an entire apparatus constructed for both generating constant outrage and collecting money and support from it. Hell, she's got it down to a science. But none of those laws she valiantly is  doing combat for are worth a crap without the Constitution of the United states to stand on, and she undermines the constitution constantly.

                    We are all rubes to the majority of those politicians. And some of us apparently are not even worth keeping alive through this winter.

                    •  You have a solution for partisan free politics! (0+ / 0-)

                      How wonderful. Please tell me how it's done and how we fix the mess we're in over the next few years with this magical non-political politics. Don't tell me I'm not paying attention. How are you going to change the Democratic party, and with what politicians? I'm all for taking a stand and telling the GOP to fuck off. I'm more for educating the public about what progressivism is about so that they might support it.

                      But unless you can tell me how we can realistically do that without clear majorities and a president, yes you are going to have career politicians. This ain't Disneyland we live in. Did you just figure that out? Please tell me about the golden age in history when it was different.

                      My best guess is to take the money out of Washington. Start insisting that every Democrat pledge to do so by making publicly funded elections strongly competitive against private elections as has been done in a handful of states. Make politicians compete on an even playing field for, say, 3 months ONLY before any election. Make paid lobbying illegal. Limit how much money only human individuals can spend in a year on PACs and 521's, limiting it to a cap of a few hundred dollars. Low enough that most wage earners can max out every year if they want and that billionaire get no more 'free speech' than any of us.

                      But hell, that puts everyone here to sleep! Everyone says "Great!" and then diaries and focuses on everything except that. Tell me how you end the fucking corruption without it. And guess what? Even that won't happen unless we fully control Congress AND  hold the White House long enough to establish a Supreme Court with a liberal majority. It's a fucking, gradual evolutionary process.

                      So how do you say we stop the corruption? Do tell with specifics, not platitudes. Show us the shortcuts to Nirvana.

                      •  Apparently you can't read. (0+ / 0-)

                        At no point do I offer a solution for partisan free politics.

                        My telling you you are not paying attention was a direct response to your insulting me by using that phrase. Sucks to be told that doesn't it. Apparently you can dish it, but you can not take it.

                        This ain't fucking disneyland we live in asshole, and people are going to die of starvation and cold while you hurl insults on the internet.

                        You will not control Congress unless you can come up with a sum of money superior to the Koch Brothers, in order to buy them with. That's it.  

                        Or pursue your plans to let people die of starvation in the name of taking back congress from one set of rich assholes to deliver it to another.

                        And when enough people have died, they will revolt. They will have too in order to survive.  

                        As for me, I want to get out of here before it happens. If I knew where to go, I'd be gone already.

                        You run along now, and go play politics with a poor persons dinner.

                        I'm done with you.

                        •  Like I thought , you won't even try. (0+ / 0-)

                          You pity the misfortunate but then throw up your hands and walk away. It sounds like commenters on this thread are saying because nobody is ideologically pure and representatives can't solve the problems quickly and perfectly in 90 minutes like they do in the movies, all hope is lost. Politics is not a game. It can be deadly serious. You cannot expect to win every crucial vote without compromise. Without losing sometimes. To tell me you have no solutions won't fix things. Why the hell do you think so many Dems, including some good ones I respect and even helped put into office, felt they needed to make this terrible choice?

                          I wasn't insulting you. i was challenging you to come up with better alternatives. I offered mine. Have you never heard of Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt? Who proved that when you remove money as a political force through law you can hamstring the real assholes like the Koch brothers? It can be done. It has been done before. I don't know how long you've been waiting for it but as for me FINALLY everyone is starting to pay attention to income equality and the political privilege of the super wealthy. Which means maybe trust busting has a chance to become a real force again. We have an real opening to squeeze through. But even the Roosevelts and other reformers had to start by working within the broken systems they had to bring the changes that are demonstrably possible.

                          But if you are going to let unfocused outrage make you walk away from political injustice it's no loss to people at this site. Because some of us intend to get the job done somehow, someway, whatever it takes until the system is changed. As a former loooong time independent I can tell you in this age the only choices to change the laws and to govern with fairness of opportunity are Democrat or Republican or stand by and let it happen without trying.

                          •  Fuck ideologically pure! (0+ / 0-)

                            What does that even mean? Nothing, to a starving child.


                          •  To me it means do nothing unless only getting ... (0+ / 0-)

                            ... our way without compromise whatsoever. That sort of thing creates starving children.

                          •  I can't, in conscience, see a way to compromise (0+ / 0-)

                            over who gets to eat, and who doesn't. Unless perhaps the politicians who have voted for cuts in food stamps give up their pay to make up the difference. That would be something I could get behind.

                            Can you swing that one?

                          •  Without a farm bill... (0+ / 0-)

                   long before all food stamps are cut off? Is that a better risk than a cut? Republicans are not going to allow allocating them under a different program. Plus it keeps their hands off of it for a while. You'd risk not having any budget for the program? Really? No budget, no money.

                            Besides, there is still a chance that the Senate will strip the cuts out of the bill if it doesn't get the votes. Then it goes back to the House and there is even MORE pressure on the GOP to drop the cuts. That's how we've been doing things during this congress.

                          •  That's not what I said Noodles. (0+ / 0-)

                            I can't pretend to justify, or even understand that all of you politicals can play games with peoples food security.

                            Respectfully you only seem to be able to see the situation from inside of a system that was constructed out of a bunch of social agreements and ideas several hundred years ago, all of which have been manipulated or corrupted by the people you support, and the rich people who own them. It's a constructed illusion of power that isn't really real. Money is an illusory system that only works as long as the people who agreed to it have faith in it. Gold Standard. Silver Standard. Whatever.  Salt used to be money. At some point in the future whatever clean water is left on this planet will be money, and we will all be fighting over that.  And shade. Or whatever land that is left that will actually grow food, if there is any after tar sands and fracking are over.

                            Respectfully Noodles, Consider jumping out of system for a bit, and using your analytical mind to asses the problems in our country from the outside. The more I stand back and look at the "jolly Caucus Race" from the outside, the more I can't begin to take it seriously.

                            In the mean time, the cold in the Midwest is very real. People losing their homes to Jamie Diamond and his ilk, that is VERY REAL. THe people in West Virginia who will spend the next generation trying to figure out which chemical caused the cancer and mutation in their household, and how the fuck they are going to pay for it, that is very, very painfully real.

                            For the record, I do give money to people locally who need help. I helped a local M. C. get a pregnant woman and her 3 kids off the street and into an apartment. That was their Christmas Charity, because just like everything that is good, the toy ride has been co-opted and turned into a circus for somebody else to make money off of.

                            You obviously have a very good brain.

                            Jump out of the system, Noodles.

                          •  I want to get rid of social safety nets. (0+ / 0-)

                            In America, this country has wealth enough to build a proper FLOOR under each citizen. There should be easy access to food, shelter, education and much post-degree education for everyone. The government should provide useful work for people when the traditional job market does not. I assume that you realize that for about 50 years the top tax brackets for the wealthiest were set between 70% and 91% on their income which went a long way towards making us the most prosperous nation on Earth through huge government investments in people. Wages were high and the average citizens collectively held most of the country's economic wealth, not the rich. And that was after we took apart two gilded ages of plutocracy.

                            With all due respect azubia, please do not tell me that there is no precidence for taking our country back from the rich. We have the blueprints and we now have technical tools for organizing and pressuring, even threatening with financial liability, politicians which no other generation of humans ever had. And these tools might be used to bring social justice to a world far beyond the borders of this land.

                            A lot of what you point out is preaching to the choir. I also see through the lens you are seeing. With all due respect my friend, I suggest that those are only a tiny number of the problems. Yet pull your view back and look at the big picture, look at the historical examples of when and how America has beat those problems back before. I refuse to believe the system cannot be fixed again, and better than ever. We live in an age which despite the fearmongering has fewer wars and violence than ever before, as counter intuitive as that seems. YouTube Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of our  Nature for hard facts. We got to this place in America because so many people were told we're helpless and changing the system was beyond their control. They believed it, fearing fear itself.

                            And again I ask, is it OK for the farm bills to keep failing until no money is available for food stamps at all as opposed to a reduction at this time? You did not respond to this question.  I don't have a great brain, but i do look for and demand good evidence when a claim is made. Will you hold judgement and using your own resources investigate the narrow few choices a number of good representatives have in Congress at this time? Don't be lied to thinking it isn't complicated, or that we cannot untie the hands if the politicians who do care. Don't think we can't overcome the corruption of all the rest of them. You must think in terms of solutions my friend. Not despair.

                          •  Wow do we have communication problems. (0+ / 0-)

                            I gotta ask, are you misreading me on purpose?

                            How does:


                            "Respectfully Noodles, Consider jumping out of system for a bit, and using your analytical mind to asses the problems in our country from the outside"
                            Translate into my expecting you to give up? It doesn't.

                            My family came here on the Mayflower. We FOUGHT in that war for independence, and for that beautiful constitution that the politicians like Boxer and Feinstein like to wipe their powdered bottoms with.

                            We have installed radar on subs marines, and been air raid wardens, We have been buried bunkers and shot. We fought in every war in for this country until they lied us into a war for oil. That generation was not sacrificed. Fuck Cheney. Fuck Haliburton. We are done with that.

                            We have organized unions, and been stewards. We have and protest marched for equality, and written our congress people and campaigned. We have always worked, and we have always paid our taxes, and it wasn't so food stamps could be cut to those in need, or so that the judicial system could make judgements that bankruptcy means that pensions don't need to be paid, or that those who tank the entire economy and steal people's homes can get a bigger bonus than ever.

                            I understand about fighting, it's in my DNA. So is a certain  pragmatism that says running in circles because a rich man says it's important to run in circles is just plain stupid.

                            Unless you can figure out how to make a living doing it, like Boxer has, for instance. I won't condescend.

                            I'm not going to answer your question about the farm bill. I refuse to buy into it. That would make me an accessory to crime of starving all those people.  

                            As for despair, I can't deny it. At the rate the rich men are polluting this planet to feed their greed, we are in big trouble.
                            Our species may well be done.

                            I have no idea what I am going to do, if I did, I'd have done it already and we wouldn't have had this epic chat. We will live as well as we can, until we can't anymore. Is that despair?

                            If you truly believe that the system is worth saving, and that you can change it to work for everyone, then you should go do it and stop wasting time on me. I am going to go see my mother. And maybe buy a rain barrel.

                            God Bless you Noodles.  I'd love it if you prove me wrong. Go to it!

                          •  The answer to your question? (0+ / 0-)

                            Been there, done that. That's how I ended up believing what I believe. And I've jumped outside of other sets of assumptions a couple of times. I'm very much on the same page as you seem to be except I've moved on to seeing the issues you see as symptoms of a more insidious disease. And I believe it requires Occupying the system, not just a piece if real estate, to solve them. Being outside the system allows the system to control you.

                            I hope that you can try to jump beyond your current assumptions and test them hard. I'm sure I will continue to do so over time. Because everything changes over time. With or without you. I've enjoyed our chat my friend and I don't see it as a waste of time because perhaps someday you'll test the assumptions I've made based on evidence I've seen and help to right the system.

                          •  Peace! (0+ / 0-)

                            And good fortune to you.

                          •  In a solid blue state and district I plan to vote (0+ / 0-)

                            GREEN as a protest.  If I lived in a swing state or district, I would think twice about it.

                          •  I've done that. The protest meant less than nothin (0+ / 0-)

                            It took me a while to figure that out. Dem's in safe seats could care less about Green votes. In fact, they don't need to spend money trying to convince them of anything.

                            But the Republicans will thank you for it.

                      •  Living in a solidly blue state and district, I (0+ / 0-)

                        plan to vote Green as a protest.  If I lived in a swing district or state, I would think twice about it.

                  •  Living in a solidly blue district, I plan to vote (0+ / 0-)

                    Green as a protest.  If I lived in a swing district, I would think twice about this.

              •  Not a little thing (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                buckhorn okie

                Food stamps have worked well for years and are not very hard on the budget. People not having enough to eat is a terrible thing and cannot be defended as part of some workable compromise. Other posters here have correctly pointed out that Democrats that do not stand for the people are helping the Republicans.

          •  Two that I have voted for (19+ / 0-)

            Bonamici (progressive caucus) and Bruce Braley, both who ran as supporting working people, voted for the bill. Braley, in particular, was widely thought to be on the real left when he first ran several years ago.

            Which supports my case that we need to turn our resources to direct action, rather than political action. The electoral system is a sham, and is designed to serve the wealthy class. It is designed to exhaust the working class of time, money, and energy. Those we elect, even the best of them, turn their backs on us time after time.

            I just called Bonamici's Washington office and told the staff I will never again vote for a member of the wealthy class, because more often than not they are not "representative" of their poorer constituents.

            "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

            by ZhenRen on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:04:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  I killed myself working to get a Democrat in (24+ / 0-)

            office.  Joan and the others here worked hard to raise funds for him

            He now consistently votes against progressive interests.

            Don't even talk to us about "taking our ball and going home."

            We walk the walk. We talk the talk. We walk the streets, make phone calls and donate until it hurts.

            And we need to tell them loud and clear that if we put them there and they fail to do what they said they'd do, we'll find someone who will.

            And THAT is exactly what I've done.

            © grover

            So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

            by grover on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:58:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing we can do is ever going to overcome the (4+ / 0-)

            damage our parties Representatives cause when they vote like Republicans.

            This is reality.  Democrats keep voting to harm poor people, and refusing to vote to help them.

            They do this no matter who controls congress.

            When we only had one House, and the Republicans controlled one House and the White House....did we believe we controlled the terms of the debate?

            Then why do you think it would work the other way?

            "I read New republic and Nation/I've learned to take every view.." P. Ochs

            by JesseCW on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 05:49:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Who told you the Dems want to overcome (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            3rdOption, buckhorn okie

            a Republican majority? If you had any evidence you could present it: for instance, Dems pushing/standing firm for what voters, from majorities to overwhelming majorities, have clearly said they want year after year for a long time now.

            How's that jobs bill coming? Oh, it ain't we're getting TPP and the European version of it instead.

            Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

            by Jim P on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:26:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  So here's how it works in Minnesota (11+ / 0-)

          Defeat the Farm Bill and you flip MN-01, 07 and 08 to Republicans.  You lose any chance of flipping MN-02 or MN-06 to Democrats.  All 5 of these districts are substantially rural/farm.  Republicans keep suburban 03 and you increase your victory margin in urban MN-04 and MN-05 by getting 78% of the vote instead of the usual 76% or whatever it is.

          The FARM Bill is an iconic bill in farm country.  What do you think farmers do when its -10 at noon in January? They drive the truck down to the coffee shop and talk about the FARM Bill.

          •  Like the doomsayers prior predictions (25+ / 0-)

            The debt ceiling fight wasn't that long ago. Surely we can remember the predictions that voters wouldn't understand that by demanding a clean bill or no bill, the President would not be to blame if the government shut down, the Republicans would be for refusing to put forward a workable bill. People were afraid that voters would hold the shutdown against Democrats, but people understood, despite the pain and real price of the shutdown, that Republicans caused it with their austerity obsession. The Democratic based loved their party for standing up and doing the right thing.

            I grew up in Iowa. Farmers are no more stupid than the voters were during the debt ceiling negotiations. Democrats should have demanded a clean farm bill or refused to vote for it and let the voters know exactly why.

            Stop with this triangulation bullshit, pitting the farmers against the people who eat only through SNAP benefits. Why are we willing to accept the way Republicans have defined the problem for us? We are not crabs in a bucket. We should have gotten a clean farm bill for the farmers and no cut to SNAP benefits.  

            You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” --George Bernard Shaw, JFK, RFK

            by CenPhx on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:28:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  But they've already held the bill up for months (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DaNang65, Eric K, caliberal2001, Loge

              That's why it's urgent now.  And you never have a clean Farm Bill anymore than you ever have a clean Defense Bill.  

              I mean I'd be thrilled if they didn't pass the Defense Bill.  I'd be thrilled to watch Schumer and Gillibrand cry crocodile tears if their favorite lobby didn't get funding for their special projects in the middle east (hint: maybe you could find a little money to feed the poor there).  But Democrats don't defeat the Defense Bill and they don't defeat the Farm Bill.  

              •  THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS. (7+ / 0-)

                Have you never heard of "amendments"?

                And "applying political pressure via public opinion"?

                "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:51:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Public opinion doesn't work when the people (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Eric K, caliberal2001

                  who will totally single issue vote on the issue are the rural voters.  Advertising that Democrats are holding up the Farm Bill mobilizes opinion but not in the way you want to mobilize it.  You've already got the voters who care about food stamps.  The voters you lose are the ones who care about the Farm Bill.

                •  Amendments were not an option (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dizzydean, indie17, Loge

                  The bill was a compromise result of conference committee - no amendments allowed.

                  “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                  by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:37:25 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What about *before* the conference commitee?n/t (3+ / 0-)

                    "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                    by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:42:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, *before* it went to conference.... (5+ / 0-)
                      Nonetheless, the decision to jettison the nutrition title breaks with nearly a half-century of precedent. And the GOP victory came at a huge political cost, splitting American agriculture and driving a wedge between urban and rural lawmakers who have long worked together on farm legislation.

                      All 196 Democrats voted in opposition, and there was a genuine fury displayed by members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who repeatedly delayed the emotional floor proceedings. The intense partisanship and often tone-deaf management of the past month have fed into doubts in Cantor’s own party over his temperament as a would-be speaker.


                      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                      by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:02:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ok, so my criticism is of Corporatist Dems who... (9+ / 0-)

                        ...fuck the poor and reward the rich.

                        I've also said somewhere in this comments section that I believe that most of the Democratic leadership, and a large majority of the elected Democrats at the national level are corrupt.

                        So I think your additional perspective is directly supportive of my premise.

                        In public (where the voters might see them), the Democrats are outraged. Behind the closed doors of a conference room, mysteriously food stamps get whacked, with Democratic support.

                        My point was, if the Democrats weren't corrupt, here's how they would have won the food stamp fight. But since they are corrupt, they deliberately lost it, and are now throwing their hands up in despair, claiming that they were once again bullied by those big mean Republicans.

                        And there you have it.

                        "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                        by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:10:02 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  On the table in that conference room (6+ / 0-)
                          A plan by House leaders to cut $40 billion from the food stamp program — twice the amount of cuts proposed in a House bill that failed in June — threatens to derail efforts by the House and Senate to work together to complete a farm bill before agriculture programs expire on Sept. 30.
                          This replaced an earlier failed effort to cut more thant 20 billion
                          The June bill included $20.5 billion in proposed cuts to the food stamp program, plus amendments calling for mandatory drugs tests for recipients and employment requirements. Democrats protested the food stamp cuts, while many Republicans said the cuts did not go deep enough.

                          Behind those closed doors somebody put up enough of a fight  to whittle that cut down to 8.7 billion. A bunch of other nasty stuff ended up on the cutting room floor, too.  Like work requirements, drug testing and other provisions that would have cut 3.8 million people off the program entirely.

                          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                          by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:30:27 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You cannot shake the foundations of my Purity... (10+ / 0-)

                            ...Troll soul.

                            If the Democratic party wanted to succeed, they would publicly destroy the Republicans, calling them out at every opportunity for their cruelty and cravenness.

                            Just like they did with the gov't shutdown, which freakin' Ted Cruz, its engineer and head cheerleader, recently tried to disavow any knowledge of, and then tried to say that it was caused by Barack Obama. That's how badly burned the Republicans were when the Democrats actually exposed them for who they really are.

                            That's what happened to Mitt "47%" Romney, and it's what happened to the "Forcible Rape" idiots.

                            Obama gave a big, nationally televised speech last night. A massive megaphone that could have been used to expose this Republican ploy to hold family farmers hostage so they can fuck the poor.

                            He could also have exposed the Republican's bill to cut military retirement and disability pay. Oh wait. Is that a Republican bill? Or does it have bipartisan support?

                            He could have called out the Republicans for that right before he lauded the heroism of the catastrophically disabled soldier, whose benefits stand to be cut by this bill.

                            In the electorate, on economic issues, the Progressives have all the cards, including the trump cards.

                            Corporatist Democrats refuse to play that hand.

                            There's no getting around it.

                            "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                            by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:52:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LOL (4+ / 0-)

                            Nothing so stalwart as a "purity troll soul". Wouldn't expect to shake least not quickly or easily.

                            As a representative of the species, have you ever shepherded major change through a complex organization, and found such techniques as you recommend to be effective in the long term? My experience has been otherwise.

                            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                            by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 04:13:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I believe what you are trying to say is: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Catte Nappe, JesseCW
                            The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

                            The barking dog gets shot.

                            "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                            by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 05:01:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  NO, the message/question is (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            politicalceci, Catte Nappe

                            tell us when you have used those tactics in an adversarial, complex situation and effectively brought about major change? My  experience is also otherwise.

                            I am no fan of the corporatists, starting with Hillary - who wrote the f***ing rules you had up thread.

                            Colorado is one of the states that has to factor in farming quite a bit. We've had dustbowl conditions across the SE plains, wildfires and floods. It's complex enough without the climate changes.

                            My extended family farms are in KS and MO. Similar problems and issues.

                            "People, even more than things, have to be restored, renewed, revived, reclaimed and redeemed; never throw out anyone. " Audrey Hepburn "A Beautiful Woman"

                            by Ginny in CO on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:47:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Didn't the Democrats just win the gov't shutdown.. (0+ / 0-)

                            ...fight, lock, stock, and barrel, using EXACTLY those tactics?

                            We're right. The public is consistently on the side of Progressive positions on economic issues. Whenever we trumpet the Progressive position loudly, the public backs us.

                            These are fights we've already won in the public eye.

                            But the terminally corrupt Democratic party does not want to fight them, so they make excuses about how hard it is to fight those big mean Republicans, and then, for some reason, certain Democrats on this site defend that bullshit.


                            "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

                            by 3rdOption on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 08:46:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

          •  Right. Because the only option is to DEFEAT... (9+ / 0-)

            ...the farm bill, not coerce the Republicans to amend it so it doesn't fuck the poor.

            Obama had a huge mic last night. He could have fomented the same outrage against the Republicans for their "starve the poor so they'll get a job" plan as the Democrats did during the government shutdown.

            But there really are only two options right? Capitulate or... Oh right, there's only ONE option for the Democrats that DKos supports.

            "No, Bill. What's nuts is the fact that you think that's nuts." - Greenwald explaining Snowden to Bill Maher.

            by 3rdOption on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:37:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hey, I'm with you on the messaging but (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NonnyO, caliberal2001

              he talked himself out of talking about income inequality.  Democrats continue to fail to make that case, but the Farm Bill is not the place to do it.   How do you think it goes over out here when all the urban Wall Street Democrats are ganging up on the farmers?  Framing the issue as urban vs farm is not the way to win the messaging.  And you've got unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and a bunch of other programs you have to worry about not just food stamps.

        •  Remember (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Democrats wiped out welfare, and Clinton took the first steps to wipe out the New Deal. Democrats have become poison to the poor, and that's a lot of votes to throw away. Clinton/Gore gave us 8 yrs of Bush; the poor withheld their votes. They did vote for Obama (no regrets) and watched as Democrats ensured that everything from poverty relief to jobs bills were shot down. It does matter which party leads the attacks on the poor, and Republicans know it.

      •  What's the point in flipping the House (32+ / 0-)

        if Democrats are going to vote like Republicans?

        Tyrion Lannister: "It's not easy being drunk all the time. Everyone would do it if it were easy."

        by psychodrew on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:10:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  When give a choice..... (10+ / 0-)

        ....between a republican and a republican lite people more often choose the republican because they at least stand for something.  If the democrats will not stand for something they will not get elected and will not stand for anything.

        We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

        by delver rootnose on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:53:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  OMFG! (27+ / 0-)

        You think this is ok?  They voted correctly to cut $90/mnth from food stamps?  
        When I was on them, I got $200/mnth.
        Less then ideal?  
        The poor got shafted and many in Congress who own farms got more subsidies they don't need, and you are OK with the deals they made?  
        And since they cut the amount, then how in the hell can she increase access to food and decrease hunger?  

        Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity, nothing exceeds the critisism made by the habits of the poor by the well housed, well fed elites.

        by snoopydawg on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:53:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ??IS it $90 for everyone? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          OMG, that is bad for me. Half of my FS.):

          •  Yes, but you just have to embrace the suck until (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            NoMoreLies, Lucy2009

            you end up starving once they cut the rest of it.

            /half snark

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 05:37:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  which half is snark? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Throw The Bums Out

              I really want to know.Is it $90 a person or not and if so where did you read it?
              It's kind of dire. Maybe like the average person hearing they are losing their job.

              •  I don't know the details but apparently it comes (0+ / 0-)

                out to $90 per person (household?) for those who will be affected as supposedly some people will see no cuts.  The only reason I put it as half snark instead of the full thing was because of the "cutting the rest of it" part.

                You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                by Throw The Bums Out on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 09:22:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm a bit serious about this issue (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Throw The Bums Out

                  don't have $90 of wiggle room in my monthly budget. It simply is. not. doable.

                  On the other hand, it'd be a good diet plan (and that is full on snark, but I am faking the emotion when all I feel is threatened).

                  •  So am I, the snark was from the "well you just (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    have to embrace the suck".  Oh, and their "well it will only affect 850,000 higher income people" doesn't add up.  They have to save 8.7 billion yet their plan to supposedly do it just by cutting 850,000 people's benefits by $85 by tweaking or removing the "heat to eat" program would only save 867  (850k * 85 * 12) million.  I doubt their advertising budget is even 125 million but even if it is that still leaves another 7.7 billion to cut.

                    You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

                    by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:55:10 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  FYI - federal budget items are customarily quoted (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      based on 10-year intervals.  I could find you a source like the CBO for that.

                      So the Arithmetic part of the LIHEAP loophole is solid.
                      850,000 x 85 x    12 x 10=    $8,670,000,000

                      It was talked about in debate, too, which appears in the Congressional Record, available online for free, without commentary, additions, or subtractions by middle men so you can form your own opinions based on plain transcripts.

                      The LIHEAP loophole is based on assumptions. There's no evidence of overpayment of benefits. The 850,000 participants and the projected savings are estimates.
                      Based on assumptions.

                      I've followed this bill since it was introduced last July and wrote about it three times on this site.  The entire bill was bogus with unprecedented shenanigans rolled out by the GOP chairs of the responsible committees. Louise Slaughter and Jim McGovern who both voted 'no' did their best to fight back.  The GOP members of the committee met in private to re-formulate the bill, then called a hearing with no advance notice for 9:30 at night to announce to the 4 Democrats that they were bringing the bill to the floor next morning, no debate, no amendments, straight up or down vote.

                      At the proceedings next day the Democrats claimed the right to insert statements for the record and they were given 30 seconds each. Each time one rose to speak, Louie Gohmert objected, and none of their statements were allowed.

                      The Democrats have no game compared to the shit that GOPs pull on a routine basis. Unless you make it your business to find out what goes on under that Capitol dome you'd never know because the news media reports very little of it and what they do report is usually half of the story.

                      There is no existence without doubt.

                      by Mark Lippman on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:53:02 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm glad you've been able to explain it to me and (0+ / 0-)

                        others because you have followed the issue so closely. I thank you for that.

                        I find that when something has the potential for seriously and negatively effecting my life-especially if it is something I cannot control/do anything about-it saves emotional energy to not dive into the details of it. It would be depressing and sap me when I need that energy to keep fighting my situation. (poverty and ill health often feels like a battle).

                        I suspect that is the reason I wouldn't go read the bill myself. It would be upset with no upside. I am in MA so my Senators and Rep, in general, almost always vote as I would want them to so contacting them more than once doesn't have much of the impact (am fortunate). I just need the punchline of how it is going to impact people, or who is going to be impacted. It has been hard to find the Punchline...WHO exactly will this effect and by how much? (!). Usually, it seems, that is more available and/or clear.

                        If detailed knowledge would make a difference I'd dive right in. Such as if I had a serious health diagnosis--when that happens for me and close others I am constantly reading and researching the issue and possible treatments in detail.

          •  Did you read the bill? / (0+ / 0-)

            There is no existence without doubt.

            by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:03:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't know what half is snark (0+ / 0-)

              I am not clear now if it ACTUALLY is $90 per person as far as you know OR you just were doing a gallows-humor sort of thing. WHere did you hear it?

              To a marginal person the threat of losing half of food stamps is around the same level of threat as loosing a job for the average person. I used to be the average person and they feel about comparable, maybe this a bit worse. So basically I asked "am I losing my job?" at the emotional level and you said yes so I want to know. Thanks

            •  sorry responded under wrong post (0+ / 0-)

              not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

              NO I didn't read the bill. Bills are pretty long. The gist is fine.  It's like asking someone who's hearing they are losing their job to read the financial report of the reason for the cuts and making them find the line in there where it says their job is being eliminated. Very draining.

              •  It's not like the cut in November which was spread (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                across all beneficiaries. It's targeted to recipients in one specific category in 16 states and DC because the GOP suspects a possibility of fraud and the states are almost all blue:

                District of Columbia
                New Hampshire
                New Jersey
                New York
                Rhode Island

                If you don't live in one of these states you won't be affected. If you do, it's estimated that 5% of recipients will be affected.  

                There's an explanation at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

                To calculate eligibility for benefits, SNAP allows deductions from gross income for certain essential household expenses like utilities.  In some areas of the country, heating a home during the winter can be costly. To streamline the approval process, some states use a household’s receipt of assistance under the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) to show that a SNAP applicant incurs these costs and thus qualifies for the standard utility allowance deduction.

                “A few states began to provide a nominal LIHEAP benefit (just 10 cents a year in one state, and $1 a year in some others) to SNAP households that don’t otherwise receive a LIHEAP benefit, including many households that do not incur heating or cooling costs.  These states did so to simplify verification requirements for the shelter deduction and to qualify more households for the SUA, enabling a considerable number of households that don’t incur heating or cooling costs to gain credit, in the SNAP benefit calculation, for utility costs they don’t actually pay and consequently to receive larger SNAP benefits.  Sixteen states and Washington, D.C. have adopted this procedure.”
                This information is confirmed in a Congressional Research Service report found at this link. Scroll down through the list of CRS reports and look for the one titled:

                The Next Farm Bill: Changing the Treatment of LIHEAP Receipt in the Calculation of SNAP Benefits (CRS Report R42591).

                Here's a summary quote:

                Both the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and  Forestry and the House Agriculture Committee have reported bills (S. 954 and H.R. 1947, respectively) that would limit the deduction associated with LIHEAP, particularly seeking to end a practice that has been referred to as “Heat and Eat.” Similar proposals were considered in the 112th Congress but were not enacted.
                The report also includes the list of states that had passed “heat and eat" legislation as of last May when it was published. (on p.7)

                The new legislation would require applicants to provide additional proof of their utilities cost if their LIHEAP documentation shows a yearly benefit of less than $20.  The federal government expects 850,000 current SNAP recipients to be affected by a reduction in benefits or disqualification. The program expects to save $8 billion over a 10 year period. Currently there are about 17 million SNAP beneficiaries in the affected states where the cost of the program was approximately $28 billion in 2013.

                If SNAP overestimated the amount of an applicant's heating cost, and gave them an excess deduction, and a benefit that exceeded the qualification standard,  the recipient may continue to receive the excess amount for five months after the law is enacted.  After that, their benefit would be adjusted according to the documentation they provide with utility bills.

                It's a cluster all the way around.

                For people who live in an apartment where the heat is included in the rent, but SNAP gave them a deduction for heating cost anyway, there could be a benefit reduction.

                It's maybe more evil than people realize but it's not at all what people assume. The GOP may decide to blow this up into another propaganda stunt.  The Democrats who voted YES are cowards.  The streamlined approval process was passed by the state legislatures and it was perfectly legal in the localities where it was used.  But it has become exceedingly difficult just to get true and factual information out anymore.

                There is no existence without doubt.

                by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 09:54:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  question, and thanks very much for your time (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mark Lippman

                  I'm in a listed state . I get fuel assistance but I DO pay for oil (landlord doesn't). I am assuming LIHEAP is fuel assistance? (the name of the program isn't commonly used in discussion in my state...just "FA" is)

                  Does that mean I am safe from these cuts per what you are explaining? Only people who do not pay for own oil but get credit anyway will be effected? Or rather, people who get $20 or less of fuel assistance only are effected? I get much more than that (just a drop in the bucket though, it's 54 degrees in here so I'm not basking in luxury).

                  sorry to make this all about me and thanks again.

                  •  If you incur heating costs and you have (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    documentation, you can deduct the amount from gross income and it may qualify you for a higher benefit, depending on other factors.

                    The only people who will be affected, if any, would be households that qualified by using heating costs to obtain a deduction from income, when they never actually paid any such costs.

                    People who received less than $20 in heating assistance would be flagged to provide additional documentation in addition to the heating assistance receipt.

                    There is no existence without doubt.

                    by Mark Lippman on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:33:42 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  How is the diary premise a nonstarter? (21+ / 0-)

        Did this vote not take place? Was the vote count different than the diarist states?

        Perhaps the President waved his famous wand and ensured that hungry Americans no longer need to eat at all? Or maybe Washington DC is an imaginary place altogether, where only imaginary laws are passed? That seems most likely of these options.

        Please don't suggest however that the diary premise is a "nonstarter" because the Thugs control the House... not when the Democrats control the Senate and the White House. Surely there's something even Republicans care about? (Hint hint: stuff that blows up and kills people.)

        When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

        by PhilJD on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:15:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't that kind of like auctioning the right (9+ / 0-)

        to kill a black rhino in order to raise money to save black rhinos? Your defense of her vote is laughable.

        I'm no philosopher, I am no poet, I'm just trying to help you out - Gomez (from the song Hamoa Beach)

        by jhecht on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:23:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not sure you meant to, but since you replied to (13+ / 0-)

        me, here's my take.

        The Democrats in Congress should not have voted this way.  The public is on their side on this, as well as most other issues.  To allow the Repubs to get their way is wrong.  

        Look, I wrote a diary to day highlighting the very big differences between those self-identifying as Dems, Repubs and independents.  I'm copying the link because you can go through the polls I link to yourself.

        Kos also wrote a diary about the differences where the Repubs are outside the mainstream from around the issues they sat on their hands for at last nights SOTU.

        Now, look at the last Huffingtonpost/YouGov poll on SNAP:

        By a 67 percent to 25 percent margin, most Republicans said they approved of the cuts. By a 67 percent to 28 percent margin, most Democrats said they disapproved. Independents were more likely to disapprove than approve, with 48 percent against the cuts and 40 percent in favor.

        Overall, 51 percent of Americans don't like the food stamp cutback, while only 40 percent said they approve. A HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted in June found that 40 percent of Americans wanted the food stamps budget decreased, while a combined 48 percent said spending on food stamps should either be increased (24 percent) or kept the same (24 percent).

        So you see, only Republican voters wanted these cuts and their Congresspeople delivered.  Ours, representing us AND the independents who didn't want to cuts--a majority of the country--did not represent us well.

        And that's the problem.  Our representatives should be fighting tooth and nail to stop the Repubs and their voters from dominating the nation's discourse or pushing their policies.

        There is a huge difference between Democrats and Republicans among those who self-identify as such.  You can see that in poll after poll.  Our Congresscritters and the President need to represent us--even if that means that every vote is a bloody fight.

        So, yeah, Thank You Bob Brady.

        To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

        by dizzydean on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:57:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  it may be possible you would FEEL differently (5+ / 0-)

        if your ability to get food for yourself is directly threatened, as it is literally for me. I cannot make it without FS, period because after my injury I CANNOT work. No credit cards to fall back on so in a matter of time I can lose my apartment.  I think we can and should be allowed to process the bad side of this emotionally and tell our representatives that we are less than pleased with what has been passed (which reminds them to not quit on this issue in general, and reminds them for the future that it matters to their constituents how the vote and that we are paying attention to this issue)..

        I think one or a few days of diaries, or even this one diary, is worth it. Sure, this may be the best they can do given the sad and horrible political climate. AND ALSO as far as I know this is the first time the safety net is so threatened and relatively unprotected (even if no fault of their own). It is freaking scary to the vulnerable so give us a few days, please.

        It isnt' if this focus is going to go on and on...when the scheduled cuts happened to people a few months ago it disappeared from peoples' minds (or diaries) in a few days it seemed.

      •  lost cause (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The problem is that our masses of poor have no voice in the media/public forum. With extraordinarily rare exception, there is no progressive media to inform our better-off about the realities of US poverty today. There is Greg Kaufmann and, surprisingly, Stephen Colbert, and... Heck, even the "Nuns on the Bus" raised the Middle Class Only banner, the last I heard.

      •  Basic points (0+ / 0-)

        Hmm? That's nonsense, and a really worn out excuse as well. This is a rerun of the Dems' "It'll be worse if we don't throw the most vulnerable off the cliff!" You know, "We had no choice," etc, etc. Democrats have become poison to the elderly, disabled, poor. In Bush/Gore, the poor withheld their votes, and Bush was elected. This administration has followed suit. Democrats have confirmed that they remain a direct danger for the elderly, disabled and poor. The next president will be Republican, and we will have a Republican Congress. The Democrats just couldn't help themselves...

      •  Hopefully, the whole damn bill's a non-starter ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... in the Senate, as well.  I don't know why YOUR congress-critter voted for this travesty (some nice fudge for her district, maybe), but I knew when I saw the title of this article that MY Demo-critter, Sean Patrick Maloney (NY-18) did as well.  Hell, I participated in a telephone Town Hall last spring in which he positively GUSHED over last year's disaster of a farm bill (yes, he IS on the Ag committee), which ALSO couldn't pass muster in the senior house.

        I don't think Monsanto has a bigger fan-boy in DC than Maloney.  His opponent for the seat this year, however, was our alleged "representative" in the prior session, Dr. Nanette Hayworth, a tea-party darling who said (before coming home to survey the damage) that she would "think about" funding for disaster relief after Hurricane Rita (which actually did more damage to her district than Sandy) IF she could find cuts to pay for it!  So ... rock over there ... hard place over here ...

        OF COURSE the New Right is wrong - but that doesn't make WRONG the new RIGHT!

        by mstaggerlee on Fri Jan 31, 2014 at 06:54:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rick Larsen (S) for spineless (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I live in Rick Larsen's district.  I wish that a credible Progressive would run against the spineless wimp in Snohomish County, Washington state.

      Warren/Grayson 2016! Yes We Can!

      by BenFranklin99 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 05:10:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now,now it was pragmatic of them. (56+ / 0-)

    Only the richest poors will be affected.
    SNAP makes ya fat.
    Unemployment numbers have fallen so the poors need not eat.
    Fraud and abuse run rampant in the system because I have a SIL who once knew a social worker who was standing behind someone who bought shrimp with SNAP.

    "George RR Martin is not your bitch" ~~ Neil Gaiman

    by tardis10 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:47:12 AM PST

  •  But was this the best they could get? (5+ / 0-)

    I'd like more, but this cut was much less than the Republicans originally wanted.  It can be increased in the future if the votes can be found.

  •  i see a good number from (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sylv, VickiL

    rural areas, but with fewer snap cuts, do 162 republicans vote yea?  I don't know the answer, but not everyone can make a symbolic protest, especially given the consequences of not passing the farm aspects.  The price of milk was supposed to shoot up otherwise.  I don't know how I'd have voted on this bill, but there are enough moving factors that it doesn't make a good litmus test.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:56:24 AM PST

    •  This vote represents a confusing array (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HudsonValleyMark, Loge

      of interests. Failing to pass it would have been an even worse result. The Republicans have damaged themselves here and we can make this work to our advantage, if we don't launch spurious attacks on our allies.

      Ed FitzGerald for governor Of Ohio. Women's lives depend on it.

      by anastasia p on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:52:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What "worse result" do you propose not passing it (26+ / 0-)

        would have begotten? If the Democrats were sincerely planning to run on income inequality and Republican callousness toward the poor, working class and middle class, this issue would, along with many others like the unemployment cuts, have provided vivid material on which to run in 2014.

        Now, instead, so many Democrats have voted for this abomination that the GOP can justifiably claim that these cuts were NOT because of them, but a bipartisan coalition. And they would be CORRECT.

        Once again, the Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and the President's words in the SOTU were just that: Empty rhetoric. Too bad, so sad for those who will starve this winter.

        "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by Kombema on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:05:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, ~ twice as many R's voted for it, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, Eric K

          so it's entirely feasible to run against these cuts, and it passed against a background of no good options.  There are political implications from not passing a farm bill, too, largely but not exclusively in farm communities.  

          Braley's called out in the body of the diary as a Democrat who voted for it while seeking elevation to statewide office.  Yeah, in Iowa.    Economic equality is best served by making that race close?  

          Tell me the legislative path to full snap funding, and I'll buy the political argument.  I can accept that there was room for more dems to vote no without scuttling the bill (and passing 'something' is a necessity), but that means it's still a free vote either way.  Maybe it's one of those times there are 435 elections, not one big one.  Still plenty of places to present the inequality message.  

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:19:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Dems rolled over without a fight. The details (0+ / 0-)

            of how many voted against or for are lost on the general public when it appears that both parties supported the cuts to unemployment, food stamps, etc.

            "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by Kombema on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  do you know that to be the case, (0+ / 0-)

              or are you inferring?  the cuts could have been worse, and there were separate fights over different parts of the bill, like price supports.  The majority party in the House gets a lot of sway over what comes to the floor, so the choice is do you want to get attacked for voting for snap cuts or get attacked for voting for doubling the price of milk.  

              A lot of Democrats voted no and can run on that, irrespective of how other Dems in other states, some more liberal than the median, some more conservative.  Still others aren't in congress and can run against no votes by their opponents. And many who voted for the final bill did so for reasons that do not suggest endorsement of SNAP cuts and spoke out against same.  Allyson Schwartz touted an amendment she passed and pledged support for undoing food snap cuts.  It wasn't too difficult to follow for the detail-not-following "general public."   The worst way to react to this is to give credence to "both sides are to blame," when you know perfectly well that a straight vote on snap cuts would not have had this result.  

              Your position requires a plausible path forward that accomplishes the goal of passing the farm related aspects and minimizes the snap cuts.  Whining about "fight" doesn't do enough, on your critique's terms.   I question why the failure of fight is on the democrats in Congress, and not an organizational failure of Democrats more broadly: who's to say you fought enough to earn the right to criticize others for how they played the hands they were dealt.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:34:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  L.E.F.T. (12+ / 0-)

    for Featured Writer!

    "It rubs the lotion on its skin" is not effective coalition building.

    by Nada Lemming on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:58:36 AM PST

  •  They are focusing on inequality (13+ / 0-)

    with their words.

    We always seem to go out with a whimper...

    It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

    by chuckvw on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:00:51 AM PST

  •  Not surprised to... (11+ / 0-)

    see most of the WA delegation on this list (including my own member of Congress, DelBene) since most of them are a part of the New Democrats Coalition...excuse while I puke.  

    "[I]n the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone...They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

    by cardboardurinal on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:14:16 AM PST

  •  Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15) is on that list. (15+ / 0-)

    He will never ever get another vote from me.

    Contacting his office right now.

    This is shameful.

    His district extends way down to South Texas where there i some incredibly poverty, truly third world conditions in places.

    To the Dems, this is a deal-breaker for me.

    I stand with poor and working people first, Dems are way down below that on my list of who to support.

    God spare me the Heart to fight them... I'll fight the Pirates forever. -Mother Jones

    by JayRaye on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:27:43 AM PST

  •  Let the Sun shine, it is the best disinfective. (8+ / 0-)

    I'm in the Henry Wallace part of the Democratic Party.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:31:24 AM PST

  •  The only way this vote makes ANY sense (5+ / 0-)

    Take a big slice of supposition. Add metadata.

    Stir briskly.

    Draw your own conclusions.

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:33:48 AM PST

  •  I know what we'll hear. What will we SEE? (7+ / 0-)

    We will hear that this was a stop-gap that won't truly go into effect, because the measure will be brought up again instantly, and then the funds will be restored, etc.

    We'll hear that there will be other means to reinstate the SNAP funds.

    Oh, sure, every shrieking fungus from the right will get to claim that it voted to "end the give away culture in Washington" (even though that won't matter. . . which is the lesson of the TEA Party that the GOP hasn't learned -- it does not matter what they do in office: each and every Republican is vulnerable from the right, when the right has no philosophy except anti-government), and every Democrat will still be called "Nancy Spenditnow" or whatever else, but we promise to give the money back when nobody's looking.

    How about when the poor are hungry?

    Everyone's innocent of some crime.

    by The Geogre on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:40:59 AM PST

    •  It's time to decide which side we are on: (23+ / 0-)
      How about when the poor are hungry?
      Taking food from hungry people is a line drawn in the sand, as far as I'm concerned.

      Cross that line and lose my vote.

      And I don't care how much "pragmatism" any one preaches at me. It's a line I won't cross for any politician at any time for any reason.

      God spare me the Heart to fight them... I'll fight the Pirates forever. -Mother Jones

      by JayRaye on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:01:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Amen (8+ / 0-)

        More, it's not even good "triangulating" -- if there ever were any. The claim is that "expediency" is the trumps.


        Well, let's think about what's really being played here:
        Congressional elections:
        Dems: "You won't be able to campaign against me with Food Stamps!"
        GOP: "I can campaign against my imaginary right side challenge by pointing to weeping orphans that I kicked with glee."

        The problem is that Republican voters will believe that the Democratic representative (I'm looking at John Barrow, for example) is a "give away" guy even though he has voted Reagan and corporate party line every year. The GOP voter will vote GOP. The Independent voters, to the degree they exist, will vote for or against "aid for impoverished families"/"Food Stamps" (for one, against the other), so the dumb jerk will have to actually campaign and might as well do what's right. This vote won't matter.

        The Republicans, though, are the dark comedy. The few who aren't true believers in malice and corruption are taking extremist, inhuman measures because they are afraid of that millionaire who will self fund and run a Wild Bill campaign. They don't get it. Nothing they do will prevent that. Low information voters are low information voters. When the GOP is "no Washington," then winning a seat makes you suspicious, automatically. Each one of them is "bad" because each one of them is in "Washington." Since the only principle of the TEA Party is "taxes" (what sort? no sort) and "Washington," the establishment GOP candidates can do nothing to protect themselves from a challenge. They can only try to define their party as being for something, and they haven't had that since. . . 1972?

        Everyone's innocent of some crime.

        by The Geogre on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:15:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes yes yes (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It is a line drawn in the sand and it is more it is a crime against humanity. Hurting those who have the least seems the politically correct thing to do these days, now that non air-breathers are people and can bankroll any representative they want.

        I was feeling pretty good until I got near the bottom and saw a Democrat named Schrader in the state I live in sold us to the Tea Party.  I wonder how much he got?

        I can pretty much guarantee you Mr. Schrader has gone and pee'd in his chili with this vote.

        "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

        by Hermenutic on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:11:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Debbie Wasserman Schultz? (8+ / 0-)


    "In 20 years, the GOP will be small enough to drown in a bathtub." - me

    by estamm on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:41:44 AM PST

  •  3 of Arizona's 4 Dems are on the list. (11+ / 0-)

    Most of them are being attacked in local TV ads that link them to Obama, so they're running to the center now. Just like they did in 2010, when they tried to run away from ACA, rather than show a backbone and stand up for it. And just like 2010, some of them (Barber and Kirkpatrick, I'd guess) will go down in flames this year. And Sinema? WTF? A giant disappointment so far!

    stay together / learn the flowers / go light - Gary Snyder

    by Mother Mags on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:49:48 AM PST

    •  Doesn't AZ have 5? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      corvo, Johnny Q, angel d, Mother Mags

      Grijalva and Pastor are both from AZ, so that'd be 3 of 5 on the list, right?

    •  No kidding. (4+ / 0-)

      Sinema's my rep, and I keep hearing crap like this about her. I really don't know what she's thinking. I'd really like it if I could be represented by a Democrat, not just a (D), you know?

      Always follow the money.

      by Zaq on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:48:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Some states will not be affected by the cuts (0+ / 0-)

      Only 17, reportedly, will feel the effects of the SNAP cuts. AZ is not one of them, if I recall. Thus they have less motivation than those from affected states.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:03:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That is a sad damn commentary, if it's accurate (8+ / 0-)

        I would have thought we all had motivation to help people be able to eat, regardless of whether said starving person might vote for us.

        This sort of craven political calculation is why people loathe politicians. (I know you are explaining the position Catte Nappe, not advocating for or endorsing it.)

        You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” --George Bernard Shaw, JFK, RFK

        by CenPhx on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:49:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hear, hear. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tardis10, CenPhx, dfarrah
          I would have thought we all had motivation to help people be able to eat, regardless of whether said starving person might vote for us.
          Or to gain the vote of someone else by sticking it to the poor.  
          This sort of craven political calculation is why people loathe politicians.
          And don't trust Democrats.  For all of the talk about how we're supposed to be the party that helps the poor or the working class, a lot of Democrats sure are willing to push them to the curb whenever they think it's politically expedient.  It's no wonder why "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."  
        •  Kind of the nature of representative democracy (0+ / 0-)

          Especially in the House. This should be no surprise. We know most of them aren't much interested in calls and letters from anybody who isn't a constituent. If our critter is supposed to be up there fighting for our interests it may well mean they sometimes are voting for policies that aren't the best outcome for some other state.

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:53:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Peter f*****g Welch?? From Vermont? (14+ / 0-)

    Good lord.

    "You are not even aware of what is possible. The extent of their capabilities is horrifying."Edward Snowden -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:51:58 AM PST

  •  Did an amendment ever get to a vote? (0+ / 0-)

    Did the Rs ever allow a vote on an amendment to fully restore SNAP?  Or was the cut an amendment that got voted on separately?  If yes to either, then those are the votes we need to look at.  Otherwise, it looks like a no-win situation.  Democrats could have stood together and prevented the bill from passing, but would that have meant no SNAP at all?

    I am become Man, the destroyer of worlds

    by tle on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:55:14 AM PST

  •  Wow. (7+ / 0-)

    That's a lot of Democrats.

    I could see the caucus deciding that a Farm Bill was too important not to pass, but giving up that much of the caucus to this vote suggests that there is a real disconnect amongst the Democratic ranks with the values of this party.

    I am not saying that it would be great for them to have hidden, but there are advantages to passing something with the one vote margin so that the message is clear that the bill was passed begrudgingly.

    This huge number from the caucus really shows how lost the Democrats are - or at least it reads that way to me.

    I can't remember whether this bill passed in the Senate yet.  If it has not, that makes this bad showing ten times worse.

  •  Cutting food stamps to the poor? Progressive! Yes (24+ / 0-)

    really. Progressing toward starvation and death for the poor?

    Well, as a poor old person living on a very low fixed income, who cannot work, whose food stamps were already decreased almost 40% in past 1 1/2 yrs (with no change in my circumstances, just their whims), I am certain that this progresses me -------downward.

    Somehow, I always envision progress as a rising up. Hmm. Maybe, Nancy Pelosi, maybe Debbie, maybe I should not have been letting you infiltrate my in-box so much. I guess I'll go block you forever now! BYE!!

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:58:06 AM PST

  •  The usual suspects (7+ / 0-)

    I wonder if Pelosi purely voted for it for procedural reasons, or if she is as morally bankrupt as the rest of that scum.  

    Bruce Braley, in particular...representing the bluest part of Iowa, but couldn't keep from complaining about how the government shutdown closed towel service for the House gym.  

    Every single one of these people deserves a primary challenge.

    Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

    by Big River Bandido on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:58:46 AM PST

    •  And same with Cheri Bustos (4+ / 0-)

      who represents the Illinois district across the river, which is even bluer than IA-02.  

      Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

      by Big River Bandido on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:00:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  yes. (5+ / 0-)
      I wonder if Pelosi purely voted for it for procedural reasons, or if she is as morally bankrupt as the rest of that scum.  

      Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

      by corvo on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:41:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course she's morally bankrupt! (4+ / 0-)

      When she took impeachment off the table for Bush, she took her constitutional responsibility off the table.

      As far as I'm concerned, she's just another craven politician, serving the 1% masters.

    •  you nailed the problem BRB (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, dfarrah

      These guys work in such luxory, have all those staffers who do most of their work.
      Have per diems, cars, health care and a ton of other perks they get for free because WE pay for it.
      Then they get the lobbyist perks on top of that.
      Then they got filthy rich from insider trading.
      They are so far removed from us working stiffs, disabled and poor people that they do not represent us in any way.
      Everything is for the protection of corporation profits and the wealthy's taxes.
      No government FOR THE PEOPLE.

      Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity, nothing exceeds the critisism made by the habits of the poor by the well housed, well fed elites.

      by snoopydawg on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 04:21:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Happy to see my rep voted no. (5+ / 0-)

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

    by expatjourno on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:02:50 PM PST

  •  Gosh, how could a member of the Progressive caucus (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eric K, corvo, TheUnknown285

    do such an horrendous thing?  My guess is, they thought there were enough other good reasons to need to pass the bill.  It's a giant omnibus bill, and anyone whose constituencies include agricultural and rural interests, had plenty of stake in making it happen.

    Since D's are a minority in the House, I don't think holding out for perfection in each bill is really an option they have.

    "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

    by lgmcp on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:10:59 PM PST

    •  Good question? Did you read the bill?/ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There is no existence without doubt.

      by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:11:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, did you? (0+ / 0-)

        I am certain my congressperson read more of it than I did, presumably a precis prepared by some staffers and hopefully competent ones.  But since he has a track record as a solid progressive, relative to his peers, I tend to think there must have been some net positives to passing it.  Perhaps that view is overly optimistic, but I have more evidence for it than I do for the view that he is indifferent to the interests of those in need.

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 08:15:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I posted a diary on it Tuesday because it's an (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp, Sylv

          extraordinary news story that was under-reported. It's all factual and linked to reputable sources and the response was favorable.

          The planned cut isn't like the one last November. It's intended to address something called the LIHEAP Loophole in 16 states and DC where the heating assistance documentation was used to streamline the SNAP application process.

          The list of states include the 10 in the northeast plus the 3 on the West Coast + Wisc, Mich, and Mont.  When I saw that I thought it looked fishy so I researched, wrote it up, posted it, sent it to Maddow and other contacts.

          It's a real story. I've been covering the shenanigans with the farm bill & SNAP since the bill's 1st version was introduced last July. With the history of it, I can't help but assume that the GOP has conjured up another phony scandal in the making.

          There is no existence without doubt.

          by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 10:09:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hey. RURAL Democrats can be progressive (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, askew

    and you have to undertand that the Farm Bill was far more than just SNAP.   All the upstate rural Democrats voted for the bill,  because it will stabilize farm economy, help the small business farm families actually STAY in business.   SNAP cuts are an unfortunate bargaining chip, but the overall bill is good for rural NY.  Where we live, and where we are butting our heads against the brick wall that is republican entrenchment.    The urban democrats would do well to listen to their friends out here in the rural red districts.    That was a battle, people, we are actually winning the war.

  •  Can't believe Corrine Brown voted for this!!! (7+ / 0-)

    Sheesh, and I remember writing to her: "I know you'll do the right thing." HA.

    Will she ever hear from me!!!!!!

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:18:34 PM PST

  •  these are not the leaders you need (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, Johnny Q, angel d, PhilJD, allergywoman

    you need some to lead, not to make the bad, a little less bad

    Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. --Edward Abbey

    by greenbastard on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:22:29 PM PST

  •  Pelosi (8+ / 0-)

    It figures. Eventhough I'm in her district I can honestly say that I've never voted for her.
    Nor for Feinstein when she was mayor here.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:23:11 PM PST

  •  Michele Lujan Grisham (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is NOT from Minnesota.  She represents me in my state of New Mexico.  I am extremely disappointed in her, but then again, she is not the democrat I wanted to vote for but the rethug was worse. Now, I wonder.

    If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

    by Raggedy Ann on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:24:23 PM PST

    •  The Republican would be worse. Count on it. (0+ / 0-)

      Leaves US in a hell of a bind, but it's true.

      Supporting the lesser of two evils is never fun, but once it gets to that point, that's not the time to walk away. The thing to do is to figure out how to get the NEXT such situation to include a good option instead of just a less-evil one.

      Unfortunately, that's really easy to say. It's markedly less easy to do.

      Always follow the money.

      by Zaq on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:52:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the problem is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, TheUnknown285

        Everyone seems to have this illusion in their mind "Just vote...once we get those magic numbers in the House and the Senate, you all can have your ponies!"

        What happens when we STILL get kicked in the ass (because money talks, and "Republicans will yell", and "teh deficit", and...)?  Then what?

        •  Not what I'm trying to say. (0+ / 0-)

          What I'm trying to say is that refusing to support the lesser of two evils doesn't help much of anything. By the time it comes to a choice of two evils, we're already in bad shape, but staying home then just makes a bad situation worse. If you're (generic "you") unhappy with being given two evils, you need to see what you can do to turn one of those evil options into a good option by the time the next choice comes around, either be replacing them (which would be by primary, when appropriate/possible) or by shoving them over to the side you want (in this case, putting pressure on disappointing Dems to be less disappointing, until we're proud to support them).

          By the time you're in the voting booth looking at the levers for Snidely Whiplash and Sauron, things are bad, but that doesn't mean I want Sauron in power while I'm trying to reform or replace Snidely. It's important to do what's possible to put someone better than Snidely in position to be voter for, but if it's still Snidely vs. Sauron this round, the answer is "Snidely now, then Dudley next term" instead of "well, this sucks, may as well just let Sauron win until we can run Dudley against him."

          I'm not always good at actually doing this. I make no claims otherwise. But supporting the LoTE should be inspiration to make sure you don't have to keep doing so, not inspiration to quit.

          Always follow the money.

          by Zaq on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:31:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I can't count on it. (0+ / 0-)

        The Repub was a woman - who knows, she might have had personal experience with this issue.  Michele never did - she grew up among NM's elite.  Her great-uncle was Manual Lujan, from the House of Reps.

        If you acknowledge it, you can change it.

        by Raggedy Ann on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:41:22 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for catching that (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Raggedy Ann, allergywoman

      I've fixed it. I also realized that I dropped the j from her name.

  •  Dammit DelBene (3+ / 0-)

    This is why I was sad to see her win the primary. She's a corporatist and a 1%-er which we already have plenty of in Congress. Thanks for helping make me ashamed of my party, Suzan.

    There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

    by BeerNotWar on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:24:51 PM PST

  •  Apparently this is our "jobs inducement" program (4+ / 0-)

    "FS got cut so guess you gotta go look for a job (or another job).  Can't have Republicans yelling at us now, can we?"

  •  Man, did I blast Corrine Brown on the phone, but (6+ / 0-)

    I'll have to follow up with an email because I don't think the poor person could get it all down, except maybe my adjectives, "outrageous," etc..  But made sure she got name/phone number.

    Didn't blast her personally, but her VOTE!

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:33:24 PM PST

  •  ya know (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What is it with Colorado Dems in Congress? Don't they get it?

    Yep none of them voted to fuck the rich poors...

    I will be watching for any Dem on that list during this years campaign..

    None of them better utter the words equality...

    How is supporting this NOT punishing women and working mothers because they are part of the rich poors elite...

    Just gave 10.02 to every Colorado Dem not on the list.. just called each office to say thanks...

    I challenge all of you defending your Rep for their vote as the best they could get to call their office and say "thank you, this is the best you could get.."
    Ask them if they know how many rich poors in their district will be effected/affected?

    "The only thing that I did wrong was staying in the wilderness to long..
    The only thing that I did right was the day I started to fight..keep your eyes on the prize hold on"

  •  Ugh, PERLMUTTER. Dammit. Time to make a call. (6+ / 0-)

    It's time to start letting sleeping dinosaurs lie, lest we join them in extinction by our consumption of them.

    by Leftcandid on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:44:35 PM PST

  •  We need to get them out of thier jobs.. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, allergywoman

    I am over this crap.

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:47:29 PM PST

  •  Just wrote to my Rep. Brown who voted for this! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angel d, aliasalias, CenPhx, allergywoman

    I told her to tell me how she could still look in the mirror, or look at a hungry child, after this vote.

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:48:27 PM PST

  •  My congress critter .... (0+ / 0-)

    ....Tammy Duckworth voted for is crap.  Completely predictable for a person who has no political volition of her own.  She only does what she is told.  Like the good little solider she is.

    It is pointless for me to call her office and object.  She only listens to money and her sponsors that forced her on the district.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 12:49:22 PM PST

  •  A very simplistic reading of the Farm Bill (4+ / 0-)

    I have to disagree with many here who are getting all bent out of shape over the cuts.  

    The reality is the cuts affect about 850,000 households.  Most of them are in the Northeast.  NYC ALONE accounts for 25% of the cuts.  CT, MA, DC certain parts of CA and a few other areas will get the brunt of the cuts as they're cutting something they're calling 'Heat and Eat' loophole where people in more expensive areas will qualify for both LIHEAP and additional SNAP benefits.

    I suspect this is more of a rural vs urban vote and since there are many 'goodies' for the more rural Dems, it makes sense politically for them to vote for it.  For example if you look at the list of YES votes you'll notice that NOT ONE Dem rep from NYC, CT, MA or NJ (except for Sires.  WTF?) voted for this.  

    Plus according to some Dems like Stabenow, it's just cutting some excess money from the program that is be misused.  Not saying it's right or wrong but if they're just cutting misused money then the impact on really poor people will be nil since they'll still qualify for assistance.  I'm thinking this may be a more nuances issue than many think.  

    Here's more on the issue

    Here’s how “Heat and Eat” works: In most states across the country, people who spend more than half their income on housing and utilities are eligible for deductions which increase their benefit levels. For the most part, that means food stamp recipients need to show state agencies their housing and utility bills in order to claim the deduction. But in “Heat and Eat” states, anyone who qualifies for energy assistance is assumed to also qualify for the shelter deduction. That means that state agencies can automatically increase how much their citizens receive in food stamps by giving them a purely symbolic energy subsidy. Anyone who receives even $1 in energy assistance is eligible for more food stamp benefits than they would otherwise receive.

    If the proposed $8.7 billion cut went through, then only people who receive a minimum of $20 in energy assistance would qualify for the deduction. Last week, the Washington Post editorial board said that would mean closing a massive “loophole” in nutrition law which provides some food stamp recipients with unearned benefit hikes.

    “While technically legal and undoubtedly well-intended, this maneuver results in many people receiving money based on utility expenses they did not actually incur,” wrote the Post’s editorial board.

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, has also defended attempts to target “Heat and Eat.” Responding to criticism of the Senate Farm Bill, which would have cut $4 billion by targeting “Heat and Eat” policies, her office said the cuts would eliminate only “program misuse.” As chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Stabenow is deeply involved in current Farm Bill negotiations.

    This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

    by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:01:30 PM PST

    •  Ah yes that "excess misused money" (10+ / 0-)

      Damn poor people and those lobsters. /s


      •  WHOOOOOSHHHH (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        That's the sound of a complex issue going right over your head.

        It's not the poor people with their lobsters but thanks for that strawman.  

        It's about people who make too much for SNAP but because they qualify for LIHEAP they automatically get SNAP when they should not.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:11:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  So it's OK to cut SNAP to poor people? (8+ / 0-)

      As long as the very poor still get benefits?  And are you saying it's OK because most of the people losing benefits are from the northeast?  Please help me out here.

      •  Not saying that at all (0+ / 0-)

        but thanks for misreading what I said.

        It's people in the Northeast and I guess more liberal areas who are beneficiaries of expanded LIHEAP programs.  Some people who qualify for these LIHEAP benefits automatically get SNAP benefits even if they don't actually qualify for SNAP benefits.  They're tightening the rules so that people who barely qualify for one don't automatically get the other.    

        At least that's my understanding of it.  

        So the poorest of the poor aren't the ones getting fucked.  It's the barely middle class folks like myself (200% above poverty) who qualify for certain benefits and live in more expensive locations like MA, CT, NYC, NJ, DC, and parts of CA.  

        Again I could be wrong but that's my understanding of it.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:21:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's a Disingenuous Argument (7+ / 0-)

          For a couple of reasons.  

          First of all, it ignores how food stamp eligibility is determined and how benefits are calculated. The only families out there getting food stamps and making $40K a year have at least 6 people in them. This is because, as a general rule unless your family also receives TANF or SSI (and most food stamp households receive neither because they are not eligible), you cannot receive SNAP if your gross household income exceeds 130% of the poverty line and your net income exceeds the poverty line.  Not the state poverty line. The federal. This varies with household size, as you know.  So, to talk about "40K in income without also talking about how many people would have to be living on it in order to qualify for food stamps" deliberately makes it sound as if there are a whole passel of basically OK folks on the USDA dole.

          There aren't.

          The feds have established a maximum benefit level for families that have ZERO income (if you have a family of 4, the most you can get in food stamps is $632 if you have NO other source of income.) Otherwise, the maximum benefit level for household size is reduced by an amount equal to 30% of your net income, in keeping with the assumption that a household can reasonably be expected to spend that much on food.

          So taking our hypothetical family who has a net poverty line income ($23550 in most states for a family of 4), they are not entitled to the maximum. You have to deduct 30% of their net from the maximum payable benefits.  The assumptions about the minimum level of "basic costs" relating to shelter that go into the calculation of benefits have all gone back up as of November 1, thanks to the expiration of the temporary increase in SNAP provided for by the Recovery Act in 2009.  

          Second, if you will notice almost all of the states affected cannot be described as low cost places to live."  Thus, with all due respect, if your household in more than one of the affected states makes only $40K year, you're barely avoiding being homeless now. Let alone well fed.

          Now you might not care, if it were your family.  Maybe you're living high on the hog on $40K (somehow I doubt it.) Maybe you have a safety net.  Relatives to help you out.  Stabilized to 1970's levels rent.  Who knows? But for most? This is catastrophic coming on top of the cuts that already had kicked in.  

          There really is a level below which you cannot go and do more than survive hand to mouth in America.  And our so called politicians keep pushing the envelope of where that level lies when they allow these types of subsistence benefit programs to take a hit in the name of politics.

          Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

          by shanikka on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:55:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well you WOULD BE WRONG (0+ / 0-)

            I only have 4 people in my family and I qualify for it.  Not living off the hog but not dying of starvation.  

            I qualify for some LIHEAP assistance because according to federal guidelines I have a small child and make less than 200% over the Federal Poverty Level which for a family of four is $47,100.  As a result of me qualifying for LIHEAP I would also qualify for SNAP benefits.  Personally I don't need it and have no plans in applying for it but it's been offered to me.  Maybe I'm better off than others because I planned somewhat in advance and I don't have a car payment and don't pay rent or any significant mortgage.  Maybe it's because I grow some of my own food in the summer and shop at discount stores for basic necessities. But the bottom line is I can make do without the assistance whereas the very poor cannot.  The cuts suck but given the alternative it's not that much for a family of 4 like mine making $40,000 to lose $90 a month especially when I wasn't planning on getting it to begin with.  Oh and I DO live in one of the higher COL areas in the country.  Oh also the median household income for everyone in the US in 2011 was $50,000, so $40,000 +/1 is really just about slightly below median.  But hey if you want your tax dollars to help me then so be it.

            I think there is alot of pavlovian knee jerk reaction to everything with the word 'cuts' in it and it needs to be examined more closely before jumping up and instinctively shouting it sucks.  I was trying to offer a different perspective and hoping for a serious discussion about the merits and faults of the bill but I am thinking that's not gonna be possible.  Maybe I'm giving the Democrats the benefit of the doubt in that they managed to convince/fool the GOP to a bill that 'cuts' SNAP benefits without actually making cuts that affect the poor.  Maybe I have some faith that our side isn't as stupid/evil as everyone here seems to make them out to be.  Rather than focusing on the real issues it seems everyone is fixated on the supposed effects this will have on the poor when the effects on the poor will be pretty much nil.  Rather than attacking it because the so called savings from closing this loophole may not be realized because there will be more administrative costs, we all would rather attack it for things it does not do.  Frankly this purity bullshit is going too far.  The same way that the tea bagging nut sacks keep pushing the right to the extreme I'm beginning to think that we're heading in the same direction to a point where like Robespierre who realized he wasn't enough of a revolutionary we're attacking our own for not being 'progressive' enough.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:56:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

              I do want my tax dollars to folks who are like you but are nowhere near as fortunate as you to have avoided the single greatest monthly expense - housing cost.  Since it sounds like if you actually had bills to pay like rent or a mortgage you'd have net income well under the poverty line with a child.  I'm happy you live in a state that is generous with LIHEAP, but you haven't mentioned whether or not you qualify for food stamps under the facts that you have stated here.  Have you actually done the calculation? If so, how much would you be eligible for with an income of 47K and a family of 4? Inquiring minds want to know - and you can find out in 5 minutes by going to your state's website.

              I'll ignore all the comparisons to "tea baggin nutsacks" since clearly you're upset.

              Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

              by shanikka on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 07:23:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for shedding (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      light on this complex topic.

      I know it is so easy for some to get outraged anytime something like this happens when they simply do not understand the full impact of the reduction.

      This is a very limited reduction, with minimal true impact on SNAP reciepients.

      In Illnois , Iowa, Wis. Minny....not a single SNAP reduction.

      So yes, these representatives who do represent farmers as well as city folks....voted for passage.

      Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater simply because you see a headline that does not tell the whole story.

    •  And those 850,000 (13+ / 0-)

      Are going to get enough to eat HOW?

      It really chaps my hide that you would try to minimize the horrific impact on nearly a miliion people by arguing it "AINT THAT MANY" or that some of those people might have access to another benefit that, if you actually studied the issue of what resources are available, you'd know that those programs ALSO don't have anywhere near the amount of resources necessary to serve the known eligible population of potential grantees.  Exhibit #1 being LIHEAP. It routinely runs out of money after serving only 10% of the folks who are eligible for it and need it.  And that's in years where we DON'T have little fun things like a polar vortex going on.

      And Debbie Stabenow's comment? She can bite me.  Her ass has not been poor and hungry with no lights and no heat and no food a day in her life.  I have, and so my ONLY concern is those people who are hurt by this.  Fuck politics if it causes folks to actually be concerned about anything else right now (as it seems to have done in comments responding to this diary.)

      Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

      by shanikka on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:57:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You would (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        Desolations Angel

        prefer the 40 billion that the GOPers were going to cut, right?

        According to the analysts these 850k are not the lowest income people on the program.

        You would prefer the poorest folks get cuts along with these better off folks?

        You act like you are the only one who has been poor.
        This just are not.

        •  Well (8+ / 0-)

          The GOP didn't cut it, and had the Farm Bill not passed today, there is no proof that they WOULD have been able to cut it.

          But now we'll have nothing other than your speculation on that point, will we?

          You know what? I don't want to hear about "analysts." I work with poor people.  And with programs that deal with poor people, helping them as best as they can to survive and thrive despite increasing neglect from their own country.  We lawyers that do pro bono spend a lot of time workign with social services agencies, most of which do reports.  Local reports, state level reports, federal reports.  All those reports are quite public.  So, instead of being so convinced that some "analysts" know what the actual human impact of this is going to be, why not go look at what agencies handling Heat and Eat, LIHEAP and SNAP themselves say? Soon as you find some of THEM who co-sign onto that horseshit about "not the lowest income people" (whatever the fuck that means - you do realize that nobody on food stamps is NOT low income, right?) the Center for Budget Priorities is spouting, then we can talk seriously.

          Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

          by shanikka on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:36:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  A california university study (9+ / 0-)

      indicates that the cut will actually cost the state more in the long run, since people with diabetes, for example, will end up in the hospital more often due to blood sugar problems due to eating less.

      And no, it isn't urban vs rural, it is an austerity measure thrown in a farm bill that serves only one interest: Putting the pain on the back of the poor. Only a person completely out of touch would not know the value of $90 to a poor person, and worry about "misuse." Poor is poor. If a person has a dwelling in which utilities are being used, it means they are so responsible living within their low income they can still miraculously pay rent, and need help with utilities to stay warm and cook food and have hot water.

      You don't know what you're talking about.

      "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

      by ZhenRen on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:16:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's all fine and good (0+ / 0-)

        but this won't be affecting the poor.  It's putting it on the back of people like me who qualifies for these programs despite the fact that I make about $40,000 a year.  So the rest of your criticism is frankly misplaced.  

        And it seems I know alot more about what I'm talking about than you do.  

        This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

        by DisNoir36 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:24:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is anecdotal (4+ / 0-)

          Please provide a link that indicates a significant number of people making 40,000 a year are getting food-stamps.

          Many of these households have elderly and others who are being cared for. It's a lot more complicated than you're making it.

          You're basing your entire opinion on your single experience. Show us some evidence that the cuts will affect only people making 40,000 per year, with no mitigating circumstances such as large number of persons in the household or caring for the elderly (extremely expensive), etc. And how do I know you're being accurate about your single anecdote?

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:48:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm basing my opinion (0+ / 0-)

            on reading up on the bill rather than making knee jerk reactions to the word 'cuts'.

            The fact that people who qualify for $1 of LIHEAP benefits automatically getting SNAP benefits.  Well in CT that means a family of 4 with a small child making up to $47,100 would get SNAP benefits.  Last I checked a family of 4 making $47,100 IS NOT POOR.  The median household income in the US as of 2011 was $50,000.  

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:18:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'm SHOCKED (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx, marina
    Allyson Schwartz (PA-13) voted for it.
    Did she ever resign her Turd Way post or did everyone just forget about it after awhile?

    Anointed one indeed...

    •  She is still listed on their website (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tardis10, marina

      I was just checking the New Dem's website for a list of its members and she is still on it. It could be outdated, though, so take it with a grain of salt.

      By the way, if anyone is interested, the vast majority of the new Dem's voted in favor of this bill. By a large margin. So if you are wondering why your rep voted for this bill, check if they are a New Dem.

      You see things; and you say “Why?” But I dream things that never were; and I say “Why not?” --George Bernard Shaw, JFK, RFK

      by CenPhx on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:18:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm trying to be fair (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mark Lippman

      There are a lot of farmers waiting on this bill. I'm keeping track of Schwartz's moves. Adam B on this site is involved with her campaign. I'm hoping the Democrats' rationale for their capitulation is that a farm bill had to be passed, and they will restore SNAP funds later. I don't know how they'd figure on doing that, though, so I'd like to hear their reasons.

      This goes along with another diary about school lunches being thrown in the trash because kids' parents were in arrears.

      •  I wrote a diary on what's behind this bill a (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, Sylv

        couple of days ago. You might like taking a look.It's a story and a half which has gone under-reported.

        It's not like the november cut that was spread across all recipients. It's targeted to a specific group of people in 16 states + DC.  Guess which states.

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:00:24 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The Farm Bill isn't about farmers... (0+ / 0-)

        anymore.  It's a bill that shells out welfare checks to millionaires and billionaires.  Schwartz will reap what she sows.

      •  I do lawyering, not policy (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        So I have no particularly insight on this question, only to note this release on her website:

        Rep. Allyson Y. Schwartz (PA-13) today announced that she secured $125 million for a national Healthy Food Financing Initiative (HFFI) to bring jobs and affordable food retail options to urban and rural communities in Pennsylvania and nationwide.

        Rep. Schwartz’s proposal authorizes funding for the HFFI to continue providing start-up grants and affordable loan financing for Pennsylvania’s food retailers, farmers markets, cooperatives and others who face obstacles to delivering and selling healthy foods. This targeted investment by increasing opportunity for healthy food will help combat obesity, which costs the U.S. health care system $190 billion annually.

        “The Healthy Food Financing Initiative will make an enormous difference in the lives of thousands of Pennsylvanians and the 24 million Americans who don’t have access to healthy foods. This public-private partnership will create solid, good-paying jobs across Pennsylvania while boosting local economic development and strengthening our neighborhoods,” Rep. Schwartz said. “By providing healthier food retail options in urban and rural areas, we can ensure Pennsylvanians have the opportunity to live longer, healthier lives and save billions in health care costs nationwide.”
        Rep. Schwartz introduced the HFFI bill (HR 2343) in June 2013 and her proposal was included in bipartisan legislation (HR 2642) the House passed today to authorize U.S. agriculture policy for the next five years.

        Modeled after the successful Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative, the HFFI is a public-private partnership that expands investment in underserved communities, known as “food deserts,” by providing flexible grant and loan financing. Since 2011, the HFFI has supported a wide range of innovative projects in rural, urban, and suburban communities. On average, a 50,000 square foot supermarket creates 250 full-time jobs, associated construction work, and expanded opportunities for American farmers.  A 10,000 square foot supermarket creates 25 full- and part-time jobs....

        “Congreso serves Philadelphia neighborhoods with the highest rates of poverty (54 percent), unemployment (26 percent), and food insecurity (36 percent) in Pennsylvania. The average life expectancy of those in our service area is 20 years shorter than that of all Pennsylvanians, with 60 percent of our clients suffering from chronic diseases and 70 percent of children in our area being overweight or obese. The Healthy Food Financing Initiative would help to further our work in the areas of primary care, nutrition and wellness, and workforce development, and allow for much needed resources for these populations everywhere,” said Cynthia F. Figueroa, President and CEO of Congreso, Philadelphia’s largest nonprofit agency serving the Latino community.

        Hilary O. Shelton, Director NAACP Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Policy and Advocacy, said, “The Healthy Food Financing Initiative is a critical step in reducing the prevalence of food deserts and the lack of healthy food options that have caused significant hardships throughout African-American, other racial and ethnic minority and low-income communities. The NAACP looks forward to continuing to work with Congresswoman Schwartz and other congressional leaders in this crucial effort to increase the affordability, accessibility, and nutritional value of foods for all of America’s families.”

  •  Just sent an email to our newly elected... (4+ / 0-)

    Democrat Pete Gallego from TX.  I CANNOT believe that he vote for this bill and I let him know that I will be watching him.

    Good grief.....I am pissed, he was supposed to get to Washington and do the right thing......SUPRISE!

    "A weed is a plant whose virtues have not yet been discovered." Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Yo Bubba on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:44:38 PM PST

  •  Called 'em out by name on Facebook. (6+ / 0-)

    The Illinois delegation, that is, who must think in one of the worst winters I remember the least of these have way too much food.

    Cheri Bustos, 17th district
    Tammy Duckworth, 8th
    Bill Enyart, 12th
    Bill Foster, 11th
    Robin Kelly, 2nd
    Dan Lipinski, 3rd
    Brad Schneider, 10th

  •  Personally (18+ / 0-)

    From all the comments above about how politically this was justifiable in furtherance of some longer electoral game in which in a blaze of glory we retake the House in some future election, I only have one question:

    How are the many people for whom this cut is going to be devastating on a very very real level supposed to survive waiting for November 2014 (the earliest of the biennial political contest we call Congressional elections) to roll around supposed to survive in the meantime? My view is that anyone who defends this on political grounds better put their money where their mouths are and spend A LOT on their local food banks.

    (And please let's have no more high falutin recipes using ingredients that most poor people haven't seen and don't have access to.)

    Otherwise, it's just playing political games with people's lives.  And I find that to be an amoral enterprise.

    Shame on Nancy Pelosi (we own her out here, sadly) and all the others.  Shame shame shame on them.  At least back in the day, once you could count on peanut butter and cheese being delivered periodically.  The USDA ensured that.  Today? Good luck making your $80/month per person work at your local supermarket without shoplifting.

    Sick, sick, sick.

    Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

    by shanikka on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:52:47 PM PST

    •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)

      Jesus Christ, I am so sick of shit like this or votes against HCR or for the Iraq War, etc being justified in the name of political expediency.  Let's call a spade a spade: If you're using political expediency as a justification of such unconscionable actions, then you are a coward and nothing more than a soulless partisan who cares about nothing more than celebrating on election day.

    •  How many people (0+ / 0-)

      are going to be devastated if the GOP repeats its 2010 successes, expands in the House and takes the Senate because so-called progressives refuse to vote until they get 100% of what they want?

      •  Good Cop / Bad Cop (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, maryabein, CenPhx, dfarrah

        That whole message about "we suck less" sure did work in 2010, didn't it?

        •  You know what else worked great in 2010? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Democratic voters not voting.  That sure sent a message and magically turned the Dem party into the Socialist party, didn't it?

          Politics is not morality.  America has a pluralistic society and the various conservatives, right-wingers, moderates, etc. are not going to go away.  Short of a revolution, you take what you can get when you can get it.

      •  As Others Have Eloquently Argued Above (13+ / 0-)

        This was not an all or nothing proposition.  Or if it was, it should have been as public an all or nothing fight as the Democrats could have humanly made possible.  Folks like you repeatedly argue it will be worse but the trouble is that you really don't know.  Because you don't have much evidence of what would happen when Democrats actually FIGHT, publicly and early and often, for preservation of decent human dignity , and what little does actually exist tends to demonstrate that most elected Republicans (particlarly the party's leadership) will fold up like a cheap suit if they think it will cost them their job.

        It's one thing to say "We tried  We failed" after making publicly clear that they really DID try.  It's a whole nother ball of wax to say "if we'd tried we would have failed." Which has been the Democrats' theme on anti-poverty programs for the last 20+ years now.  

        So, as I noted above, if folks want to defend what has happened on political grounds, back that shit up with your cold hard cash and make sure that people get FED.  Because in the end, adapting Malcolm X's sage comments about commitment to patricular religions since it speaks equally well to the religion of politics (and obviously for some folks politics is their religion because what else could explain rationalizing this away by worrying about what "might" happen some day when you KNOW what is going to happen today?)

        "If it hasn't done anything more for you than it has, you need to forget it anyway."

        I'm out.

        Love Africa? Love Opera? Love documentaries? Then you will love the The Tenor from Abidjan

        by shanikka on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:31:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I already send a check to my disabled (13+ / 0-)

    SNAP-collecting brother every month. Now it looks like I'll have to send one to my sister as well. Well played, Sean Patrick Maloney.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:54:34 PM PST

  •  Center on Budget and Policy Priorities assessment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbell, bluemeanies, marina
    The proposed farm bill conference agreement announced today represents a relatively favorable outcome for SNAP and most of the millions of low-income Americans who rely on it, especially in light of what might have occurred or what may occur if Congress rejects this agreement and leaves it to the next Congress to write its own farm bill.

    To be sure, the conference agreement does include $8.6 billion in SNAP cuts over the next decade.  Yet it stands in sharp contrast to the nearly $40 billion in SNAP cuts in the House-passed bill of September, which contained an array of draconian provisions and would have thrown 3.8 million people off SNAP in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  The conference agreement includes none of the draconian House provisions — and it removes virtually no low-income households from SNAP.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:55:28 PM PST

  •  Demi-crats (0+ / 0-)

    Only half-assed.

    America, we can do better than this...

    by Randomfactor on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 01:56:58 PM PST

  •  My Congressman is on the list (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TheUnknown285, CenPhx

    He won't get my vote in the next election, and I'll tell him so.

    •  Luckily, mine isn't, but there is one (0+ / 0-)

      from my state and I'm gonna make a stink about it. I've got at least 9 months of making sure people in this state know he voted for this bull and I'm going to be yelling about it until he comes up for reelection, whenever that is. I'm sure there's a better replacement out there and I hope it's a woman!

      Life... is like a grapefruit. It's orange and squishy, and has a few pips in it, and some folks have half a one for breakfast. -Douglas Adams

      by mahytabel on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:05:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm getting real tired (7+ / 0-)

    of seeing some of these same names on these lists over and over again. With Dems like these, who needs Republicans?

    "Today is who you are" - my wife

    by I Lurked For Years on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:18:29 PM PST

  •  FKing scum are not Democrats. Obama VETO it (3+ / 0-)

    If the President had even one once of integrity he'd VETO this abortion and tell the Congress don't send it back without SNAP intact and the Unemployment benefits retroactively reinstated to those who just fell off.

    To FIRST bump a Million plus off unemployment and THEN cut the food stamp benefits so those very people can starve, FUCK ALL Y'ALL.

  •  that is about 45% of Dems in Congress. (4+ / 0-)

    now. think on that. just think about it.

    “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” Buckminster Fuller

    by pfiore8 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:34:25 PM PST

  •  I assume the corporate welfare for the farms (9+ / 0-)

    is in the bill untouched. The massive corporation owned farms are in a period of huge profits. And yet their welfare check is in the mail.

    Another example of the shameful whores in congress doing the bidding of their masters.

    No longer Hoping for Change. Now Praying for a Miracle. 🍞 & 🎪

    by CitizenOfEarth on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:36:09 PM PST

  •  The Nutrition Title in this legislation is a joke. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ignacio Magaloni, Sylv

    SNAP benefits paid to recipients in 16 states and the District of Columbia are targeted by new budget cutting legislation passed by the House today.

    Certain SNAP recipients in the following states would be affected if the legislation becomes law.

    District of Columbia
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    New York
    Rhode Island

    There’s a clear explanation about the link between LIHEAP and SNAP at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website.
    “A few states began to provide a nominal LIHEAP benefit (just 10 cents a year in one state, and $1 a year in some others) to SNAP households that don’t otherwise receive a LIHEAP benefit, including many households that do not incur heating or cooling costs.  These states did so to simplify verification requirements for the shelter deduction and to qualify more households for the SUA, enabling a considerable number of households that don’t incur heating or cooling costs to gain credit, in the SNAP benefit calculation, for utility costs they don’t actually pay and consequently to receive larger SNAP benefits.  Sixteen states and Washington, D.C. have adopted this procedure.”

    The new legislation would require applicants to provide additional proof of their utilities cost if their LIHEAP documentation shows a yearly benefit of less than $20.  The federal government expects 850,000 current SNAP recipients to be affected by a reduction in benefits or disqualification. The program expects to save $8 billion over a 10 year period. Currently there are about 17 million SNAP beneficiaries in the affected states where the cost of the program was approximately $28 billion in 2013.

    There's no reason to believe that benefits were paid to recipients who wouldn't have qualified if SNAP verified their utilities cost before deducting it. Estimating heating cost was encouraged as a faster, cheaper, more efficient method for processing applications.

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 02:48:35 PM PST

    •  Noting the states that are affected (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, dfarrah

      I can't help but conclude Republicans can let children starve, as long as they're Democrats' children.

      Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

      by fourthcornerman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:02:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Christie is just the one who got caught. His (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        marina, Sylv

        people didn't have any pity for the people they victimized because they were Buono supporters. Said so in an email.

        They have all sorts of tricks.

        There's more to this bill than what meets the eye. I did my research to learn what's in the bill on my own because the corporate owned media isn't going to inform anyone unless it's to their advantage.

        I posted a diary on it yesterday with links to the source info.

        There is no existence without doubt.

        by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:11:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I cannot tell you how happy I am that (4+ / 0-)

    neither of my senators are on this list and how disappointed I am that people I donated to are on the list.

    That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

    by stevie avebury on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:02:55 PM PST

  •  in Texas, I count (1+ / 0-)

    4 Hispanic and one female black Dem. who voted for this.  disappointing, to say the least.

    I'm part of the "bedwetting bunch of website Democrat base people (DKos)." - Rush Limbaugh, 10/16/2012 Torture is Wrong! We live near W so you don't have to. Send love.

    by tom 47 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:12:41 PM PST

  •  Republican John McCain Comforts A Taker And (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    tells her she is not a taker.

    One lone Republican showing compassion to the takers.

    Democrats just callously cut them off and then give some flimsy excuse about how they had to vote to cut off the takers from taking all the wealth of America or something.

    What is the Democrats excuse for cutting off the takers?

    Did they offer any excuse other than they just had to?

    "I think that gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman.” - Arnold Schwarzenegger 2003

    by kerplunk on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 03:29:33 PM PST

  •  I love all "it could have been worse" comments. (8+ / 0-)

    All of the comments saying how satisfied we should be that the poor didn't get hosed even more.  It's like saying we should be satisfied that at least some on the Titanic made it to the life boats.

  •  Something was in that bill that.... (0+ / 0-)

    caused Jim Clyburn and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to vote against the passage.

  •  Indeed, It Is a Two-Party System (0+ / 0-)

    Republican and Republican Lite.

  •  One thing to note: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, marina, ban nock, Sylv

    Someone posted the below about this issue the other day.  This may to be the best they can do right now.

    "I work for a Food Bank.  I got an email this morning from Feeding America (the national organization that the majority of Food Banks belong to) and it contained the information cited above about the cuts to SNAP and the following position from Feeding America:
    While we strongly oppose the cuts to SNAP and therefore will not support the bill, we also will not be actively opposing its passage.  This decision did not come lightly.  We know how damaging the loss of SNAP benefits will be to low-income households, particularly coming on top of the SNAP ARRA cut last November.  However, after discussing the implications with the network, our partners, and key Members of Congress and their staff, we have come to the following conclusions:
     After a thorough assessment of the political climate, we believe it very unlikely that the outcome for SNAP and other hunger-relief programs will improve if this bill fails.
    •     Based on what we saw with the House increasing the cuts to SNAP after the initial bill failed because cuts to SNAP were not deep enough, history suggests the outcome could be far worse if Congress attempts to pass a different bill later in 2014.
    •     With the mid-term election this fall, it is possible that the political composition of Congress will shift in a direction that makes it harder to protect against cuts. Democrats are at-risk of losing seats in the Senate, possibly losing control of the chamber, and are unlikely to pick up significant seats in the House.
    •     After three years of partisan fighting to get the farm bill to a vote and with mid-term elections on the horizon, we believe this is likely the best bill possible for this farm bill cycle.
    •    While the TEFAP [*The Emergency Food Assistance Program] gains in no way will make up for the lost meals due to the SNAP cuts, they are nevertheless critical to our network.  An increase of $205 million in TEFAP is a significant victory in this era of deficit reduction, and there is no guarantee that we would be able to secure the same amount of new funding for TEFAP if the current bill fails."

  •  And you'll realize voting and election mean nada (1+ / 0-)

    after how many decades this corrupted system goes on? The rich have taken over our government, more or less permanently ... you can't "fix" that. Oh, pass laws to restrict their power? Except since the rich control the lawmakers, the laws get weakened or are toothless. How many laws about making effective positive changes in banking, education, law enforcement,  poverty, voting rights, hazardous chemical/oil spills, species preservation, logging, ad nauseum have we passed ALREADY, and how much have they changed things?
    You can't cure cancer by hoping it turns benign one day.

    Ash-sha'b yurid isqat an-nizam!

    by fourthcornerman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 06:12:17 PM PST

  •  Damn, the 2 reps from my state voted for this (1+ / 0-)

    mess.  I bet they'll argue it was for the rest of the bill and not 'for' cutting food stamps.  I'm not terribly surprised by Loebsack after I heard his comments on the president's speech.  He's headed toward the Republican wing ( the more old fashioned one, not the supper radical) with him saying that the President needs to work with the Congress, if the President would just compromise.... yeah, right.... good thing you're in the new district that doesn't include my town.  Now, Braley.... we need to have a chat....

  •  TeaParty Bolsheviks voted NO/Dems voted YES. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marina, ban nock

    I've been writing about SNAP since this bill was introduced last July.  Wouldn't Progressives who have a commitment to this vital program be a little curious about this turn of events?  How did we get from what we saw on the floor of the House last summer, in this video, to today? Do you know what's in the bill?

    Let's see who voted against this bill today. Does it seem odd to you that these folks voted against the farm bill and against the cut in SNAP funds? No questions asked?
    Representative Party CD
    Amash, Justin R MI-03
    Bachmann, Michele R MN-06
    Blackburn, Marsha R TN-07
    Broun, Paul C. R GA-10
    Cotton, Tom R AR-04
    DesJarlais, Scott R TN-04
    Fleming, John R LA-04
    Foxx, Virginia R NC-05
    Franks, Trent R AZ-08
    Gohmert, Louie R TX-01
    Gowdy, Trey R SC-04
    Hensarling, Jeb R TX-05
    Huelskamp, Tim R KS-01
    Price, Tom R GA-06
    Salmon, Matt R AZ-05
    Sanford, Mark R SC-01
    Stockman, Steve R TX-36
    Weber, Randy R TX-14
    So Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, & Louie Gohmert got it right on this bill today?

    Tim Huelskamp, the House rep who had a meltdown on Maddow's show last night got it right?

    House rep Randy Weber tweeted last night about the  "Kommandant-In-Chef... the Socialistic dictator” but he got it right today on this bill? He didn’t even spell Chief correctly.

    Did you read the bill? Did you ask questions?

    There is no existence without doubt.

    by Mark Lippman on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 07:03:26 PM PST

  •  Poison (1+ / 0-)

    Yes, Dems took the lead in waging the class war ever since Clinton. We know via the "grapevine" that the poor overall will respond to the upcoming elections the way they responded to the Gore/Bush election. The poor have no voice in the public forum, but they do still have the power to vote/withhold their votes. Current Dem legislators no longer even claim to "stand with the American people," but very specifically with the middle class, those with incomes in the $50k range. Cutting basic food aid to the elderly, poor and disabled is a new American low, yet not surprising. We already knew that the next administration will be Republican. (The middle class has been shrinking for years, so their power to determine election outcomes has been shrinking.)

  •  Our Party choices are Shitty and Shittier..... (0+ / 0-)


    Corporations before people.... it's the American way!

    by Lucy2009 on Wed Jan 29, 2014 at 11:39:14 PM PST

  •  I'm glad to see (1+ / 0-)

    that no one in the Massachusetts delegation voted for this heartless and brainless cut (I vote in MA). What were these DINOs thinking? Mon frickin' Dieu.

  •  They haven't made much noise this time around, (0+ / 0-)

    because they are a minority in the house and could keep their heads down. These are called BLUE DOG democrats and need to be remembered as such.
    "Why did you vote, with the Republicans, to cut food stamps and keep Farm Subsidies?"
    That would be my question at every public forum and function during election time.

    "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

    by Cruzankenny on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 04:03:45 AM PST

    •  Just FYI (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      Farm subsidies don't all go to Big Ag. Most family-operated farms couldn't continue without some kind of subsidies or price supports. Just saying.

      •  Never meant Big Ag vs Small, but if most of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        what I've read is true, the lion's share of subsidies go to "Big Agg". I would love to argue farm subsidies for things like Butter and Milk, but I was only comparing two items in one Bill.
        Why vote for farm subsidies and not for Food Stamps and other help for the poor? I could easily throw Farm Subsidies out the window and ask; how they could vote to make anyone's life who is suffering from poverty worse than it already is?

        "If you tell the truth, you won't have to remember anything", Mark Twain

        by Cruzankenny on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:00:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because you don't want to be dealing with this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          bill a year from now. Come February 2015 a farm bill could eliminate food stamps altogether. Period. Zilch.

          It's a better than even bet we lose the senate, we won't regain the house. A further change to the filibuster rule would allow Republicans to pass any bill they want.

          I'm poor.

          Lots of people that live around me get food stamps. We would certainly qualify by income.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:06:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  "Primary 'em all!" (0+ / 0-)

    get rid of them.

    We'll never have a majority in the House again with this type of thinking.

    Leave the knee-jerk reactions to the TeaParty, k?

    I am a Progressive. I believe in one simple phrase: "... with liberty, and justice for all."

    by Nebraska68847Dem on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:13:54 AM PST

  •  Pennsylvania choice: Republican or Green (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    S Kitchen

    If Schwartz wins the primary there will be two Republicans on the ballot: Schwartz and Corbett. There will be one Green on the ballot: Glover

  •  Why do elected officials (2+ / 0-)

    in this country always take from the poor,  in the name of fiscal responsibility?

    It's shameful.

    "The people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking the day off. Why should I?”---Bob Marley

    by lyvwyr101 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:57:28 AM PST

  •  You take one dollar (1+ / 0-)

    from a poor person he may not eat a meal.  You take one dollar from a rich person they cry like a baby.  
    These are not Democrats they are corporate plutocrats.  What a sorry state of affairs.

  •  Flawed Party Loyalty (0+ / 0-)

    This goes to show how too many so-called progressives allow the siren song of party loyalty to the so-called leadership to corrupt their votes and actions. This flaw exists at every level of the Democratic Party from the lowest precinct executive committee to the DNC to the minority leader of the House of Representatives. It has virtually eliminated today's Democratic Party from serving as the check and balance that the People and the Planet desperately need.

  •  This is not a 'Farm Bill' anyhow (1+ / 0-)

    This is a bill to give government support to the agribusiness  industry and in order to do it the most vulnerable have to suffer.  All who voted to hurt air breathing citizens are deserving of the Kratschitz Low Achievers Award. Award.

    "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness," Allen Ginsberg

    by Hermenutic on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 09:18:38 AM PST

  •  What the F***? (0+ / 0-)

    I thought these blood suckers were supposed to be on our side. I guess I'll be finding a way to increase my monthly contribution to the Second Harvest Food Bank again.

    I've heard it all before.

    by Fried52 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 12:03:28 PM PST

  •  Surprising Names (0+ / 0-)

    Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
    Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
    Anne Kuster (NH-02)
    Nancy Pelosi (CA-12)
    Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)

    Is there some reason why I shouldn't be surprised that these names are on the list?

  •  Part of the problem... (0+ / 0-)

    Democrats have brought us:

    The NDAA, the Patriot Act, "free-trade" agreements, kill lists, trashing OUR Constitution, ending net neutrality, helping the Republicans cut Social Security, no single-payer health care, unlabeled genetically-modified frankenfoods in our supermarkets, letting the health-care corporations gouge us, illegal wars slaughtering civilians, drones over America, government wiretapping of citizens' private communications, agreeing with the Republicans to do nothing about homelessness, easily-hackable voting machines, helping the Republicans destroy OUR post office, brutally attacking peaceful Occupy demonstrators with militarized police, no prosecutions of the Bush-Administration torturers, and no prosecutions of the criminal bankers that trashed our economy.

    This fascist party is part of the problem!  They'll have to do better than just threatening us with the Republicans.

    My donations go to the Green Party.

  •  Neo-Scum (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Neoliberal neodemocrat SCUM!!!

  •  Afraid of the Tea party or Worrse? (0+ / 0-)

    Those 89 democrats needs to be hauled in a given a list of the democratic party's platform.  I didn't see screw over the poor in it.  We need to put pressure on those democrats in Congress, especially the blue-dogs who routinely sell out the party and vote with the republicans.  How do we explain these sell outs?  They are either democrat in name only as the Congresswoman from Louisiana is along with her blue-dog cohorts or they are afraid of the tea party.  

    Now we could have both like many seated in red states but I do believe it is deeper than that.  It is a problem with having their party leader and president being an African-American.  This along with the tea party rewarding the blue-dogs for their votes by running candidates against them who caucus with the republicans to give them control of both houses after the midterm elections are held.  

    The presidents SOTU speech did nothing to rile up the democratic base.  President Obama for some reason is not willing or able to aggressively and forcibly fight back for the last five years of republican antics, obstructions, and defiance.  He has no problem killing innocent civilians in drone attacks but he seems wholly neutered by the right which has neutered the DNC.  There is no fight in the dog and letting the GOP and the blue-dogs who voted with them without so much but another begging for them to work with him to fix the country.

    After the fall, he will be a lame duck president unable to get anything done and his presidency a failed attempt to bargain with a GOP who had stated from day 1 they would oppose him at every turn.      

  •  We are never going to obtain justice, equality, (0+ / 0-)

    and democracy through the political process.  The process is thoroughly compromised and corrupted, and everyone knows it.

    Liberal/progressive Democrats and Independents really need to agree to agree on that understanding, and join together in solidarity behind a democratically conceived plan for achieving these goals.

    Democrats cutting food stamps.  How tragically sad is that?

    She told me I could choose anyone I wanted to help me save the planet, so naturally, I chose you.

    by Lavender Menace on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 02:56:24 PM PST

  •  Remember Pelosi voted for this the next time (0+ / 0-)

    you think she should be Speaker of the House.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them. "We're not perfect, but they're nuts."--Barney Frank 01/02/2012

    by cany on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 03:08:01 PM PST

  •  A big black mark on their names. (0+ / 0-)

    I've decided it does not matter if we have a Democrat in the White House and it doesn't matter if we have Democrats in Congress.

    No more donations from me. I've given my last.

    This is stupid beyond measure.

    We don't send you there to say yes to Republicans who say no to everything good for this country.

    If you can't say no to them, don't say anything at all. I've donated to a number of the people on that list.

    No more. At least I know how to say no.

    •  Please continue to give .... (0+ / 0-)

      Many of these Democrats are soon expecting tight races and they represent agricultural districts. They need this legislation. We can feel the pain inflicted by this, but still be strategic. If we don't win the house soon, things will be worse. Please think. Then give. We'll need these folks later.

      •  If this is how Democrats win... (0+ / 0-)

        ...I'd hate to see us lose.

        The Republicans would have been at fault if the bill had not been passed. You can bet the poor would be aware of that. Perhaps it would spur them even moreso to get out and vote in November.

        Time and again, it has been proven that you do not bargain with terrorists and the Republican Party is terrorizing the middle class and the poor of this country. Bargaining with them is only giving them more power to hurt the poor.

        All day today I received messages asking me to donate to maybe a dozen people. I simply said no.

        I'm not going to pay someone to make a loser out of my entire party - and, in fact, to the poor and the middle class of this country.

        Let the millionaires in Congress who voted for this bill open their wallets and pay for their own elections.

        I am just plain angry. If I am going to lose anyway, why would I want to pay for it?

  •  These so called Democrats... (0+ / 0-)

    are nothing but Republican plants within the Democratic party.

    If you like bicycles, check out the newest and coolest products at my site, "" You can also find my products at e-Bay under the name, "Ziggyboy." See all the products on my "See seller's other items" link.

    by JohnnieZ on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 05:00:02 PM PST

  •  Can You Say Corporatists, Boys and Girls? (0+ / 0-)

    I knew you could.

    If progressives were voting for policies they believe in, they would be voting for Dr. Jill Stein.

    by Wahrheit on Thu Jan 30, 2014 at 06:29:34 PM PST

  •  I am ashamed to see Washington on that list (0+ / 0-)

    I think this is an important issue, and no one should back down.

  •  What Was The Alternative? (0+ / 0-)

    I don't like the cut in food assistance either. But what would have happened if Democrats joined the 63 Republicans who voted no and defeated the bill? Then we're left with no bill and no food assistance program. Who thinks that it would produce a better deal with the rest of the Republicans?

    I would have liked to see the funding preserved, but politics is the art of the possible, and Democrats don't control the House. I'm not sure why people think that shooting this thing down would have led to a better result.

  •  Farm Bill Vote (0+ / 0-)

    I am anything but anti-women, but I was shocked to see the number of Democratic women voting to cut food stamps. All the progressive releases this past year have been issued promoting Democratic women for office which I'm all for, but the number of women voting against this bill was shocking. Let's, as voters, evaluate candidates based on their voting record, not their gender.

  •  Next elections are already decided (0+ / 0-)

    And much of the media marketed to libs continue to advertize them as "Bold Progressives".  The Clinton admin. targeted the disabled and poor, giving us 8 years of Bush.  The poor (and those who stand with them) didn't vote Republican. They simply withheld their votes. This administration targets the elderly, disabled and poor. The next president will be Republican, elected the same way.

  •  not necessarily bad (0+ / 0-)

    I consider myself a loyal democrat but that doesn't mean I have to be for all types of assistance all the time. I am comfortable with a food stamp cut.  It could motivate more to get out there and pick up a part time minimum wage job. I certainly worked multiple jobs and jobs that I am not proud of. I needed to eat and extra work was worth it. We hear too much about there not being jobs while everyone I know who is not working is because the have made the choice that it is easier to fill out a form and who cares about dignity anyway. Not surprising to me that all the slackers I know are republicans.

  •  FUCKING TRAITORS! (0+ / 0-)

    You know, I'd have expected the Republicans to vote to pass the Farm Bill, which slashes $8.7 billion from SNAP. Frankly, I'm surprised that so many voted against it. However, it makes me sick to my stomach to think that 89 House Democrats also voted to pass this piece-of-shit bill, thus selling disadvantaged folks who rely on food stamp benefits to supplement their monthly grocery expenses down the river. And I was completely shocked to read the names of the Democrats who DID vote for it, since some of them claim to be such devout progressives. Are these the same Democrats who have said that they think President Obama isn't liberal ENOUGH?

    Thank you, Daily Kos, for printing the name of every single one of these lying Democratic bums. Liberal American voters need to know about how 89 of their own became traitors to the causes which they vowed to support. Really, this is just unconscionable, and honestlly, it scares the shit out of me. I mean, when Democrats like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Nancy Pelosi and Jim Clyburn start siding with the enemy, we regular slobs are toast. Stick a fork in us. We're done.

  •  I know 2 of the people on the list; (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They told me that they were confident that there would be a bill/vote, with sufficient spport to restore all or most of those cuts.

    I'm not so sure that is going to happen any time soon, but both tell me they remain confident it will happen.

Meteor Blades, colleen, fly, Alumbrados, davej, Angie in WA State, marc brazeau, jazzmaniac, Chi, dalemac, texaseditor, glitterscale, Snow Camp, Danno11, Shockwave, cotterperson, liz, mslat27, eeff, xynz, delver rootnose, RFK Lives, gjohnsit, expatjourno, niemann, Pithy Cherub, shanikka, buckhorn okie, roses, Ignacio Magaloni, Nate Roberts, wader, hangingchad, Miss Jones, CitizenOfEarth, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, cosette, churchylafemme, HeyMikey, RebeccaG, dkmich, zerelda, jcrit, lyvwyr101, vacantlook, davidincleveland, Los Diablo, maybeeso in michigan, marina, 3goldens, SherwoodB, Chinton, democracy inaction, irate, corvo, Big River Bandido, run around, ChemBob, YucatanMan, Dem Beans, where4art, Burned, Ice Blue, jtg, WisePiper, Ginny in CO, snoopydawg, peacestpete, Jim P, Mother Mags, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, Medium Head Boy, vigilant meerkat, cybersaur, dharmafarmer, cardboardurinal, Gorette, koNko, raincrow, Lefty Coaster, blueoasis, NBBooks, DarkestHour, triv33, MJ via Chicago, JVolvo, middleagedhousewife, BlueMississippi, thenekkidtruth, kurt, Tom Anderson, kurious, markthshark, PatConnors, Aaa T Tudeattack, ammasdarling, One Pissed Off Liberal, john07801, merrylib, devis1, psychodrew, LillithMc, la urracca, david mizner, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, dclawyer06, aliasalias, HCKAD, Aunt Martha, Librarianmom, christianlsv, Got a Grip, JML9999, dizzydean, on the cusp, GideonAB, thankgodforairamerica, Ezekiel in Exile, JeffW, Involuntary Exile, royce, RandomNonviolence, dewley notid, mofembot, temptxan, petulans, 3rdOption, Parthenia, priceman, ZhenRen, LaFeminista, rubyclaire, cybrestrike, number nine dream, Throw The Bums Out, greengemini, divineorder, lostinamerica, dharmasyd, CanyonWren, mkor7, JesseCW, geebeebee, MKSinSA, politicalceci, ArthurPoet, nancat357, angel d, Nannyberry, Leftcandid, rb137, pyegar, p gorden lippy, flitedocnm, LaughingPlanet, The Jester, kjoftherock, LOrion, Polly Syllabic, Lost and Found, I Lurked For Years, gulfgal98, samanthab, kacemo, DiegoUK, Johnny Q, Maverick80229, Nada Lemming, slice, no way lack of brain, Pakalolo, Barbara Marquardt, Colorado is the Shiznit, allenjo, ozsea1, StateofEuphoria, spooks51, Jazzenterprises, slowbutsure, asterkitty, mikejay611, Teiresias70, CoExistNow, Alice Olson, sethtriggs, 1718bill, tardis10, LSmith, nogo postal, worldlotus, Joe Hill PDX, PhilJD, diffrntdrummr, stevie avebury, Hayate Yagami, ratcityreprobate, RLMiller, nyer11Oak, allergywoman, Azazello, DawnN, quill, anodnhajo, DeadHead, greenbastard, IndieGuy, Jakkalbessie, turn blue, 420 forever, joeschmeaux, This old man, Mr Robert, Mike RinRI, peachcreek, hotheadCA, BusyinCA, doroma, LiberalVol, catchy, CatCiaoInUSA, CalBearMom, Heavy Mettle, Most Awesome Nana, Chaddiwicker, jbob, JayRaye, BonnieJeanneTonks, broths, mettle fatigue, HedwigKos, Yo Bubba, alice kleeman, JosephK74, Pritty Brains, Patango, jplanner, Ishmaelbychoice, amparo fan, martianexpatriate, Catkin, CenPhx, jbsoul, gmbi007

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site