POTUS signing the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010.

[dgibby]

Just now on MSNBC, both Obama's speaking. This is the bill that will increase aid for low-income kids.

[Schema Thing]

1. right wing fascist bastard!

[young but wise]

4. LOL

[no limit]

6. Cutting food stamps is a very progressive thing to do

amirite?

[bushisanidiot]

2. Well done, Mr. President!

Keep fighting the good fight.

[dennis4868]

3. This is the bill that will increase aid for low-income kids.

You mean the anti liberal/progressive president is signing this bill?

[Donnachaidh]

5. Isn't this the bill that's paid for by CUTS in Food Stamps?

Yeah :woohoo:

:eyes:

[dgibby]

7. I'm not sure.

Just posted for FYI purposes. As unhappy as I am with Obama right now, I still try to give him credit when it's due(if it's due).

[no limit]

8. This bill cuts 2.2 billion from food stamps.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/12/13/child.nutrition/

[Beacool]

10. Shhhh, you member of the "professional left"!!!

You are ruining their shiny moment.

It's all a shell game. Take it from one area and give it to another.

Edited to add:

"The bill also increases the spending per meal by about 6 cents, President Obama noted. He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obamas-food-bill-signing-121310,0,2298518.story

:(

[CakeGrrl]

16. Another who doesn't understand who the "Professional Left" are

What don't you get about the word "Professional" , as in those who are PAID to express their political opinions?

What is so difficult about that concept?

Oh right - it allows the pity party to keep going in full swing!

[MH1]

19. words DON'T have meaning

to some people.

[Beacool]

25. Oh, gee...................

The defenders of all things Obama are out in full force.

Chill out, it was a joke.......

:eyes:


:7

[CakeGrrl]

26. This isn't even about the President, it's about a common misinterpretation on this forum

that has fueled a lot of resentful posts because people have taken the term to mean them personally as a Progressive.

Those kinds of misunderstandings don't help the chance of a reasonable dialogue when people go into it feeling like they were personally attacked when they were not.

It'd be nice if ignorance didn't rule the day so often.

[jenmito]

27. Don't you get it?

She said it was a JOKE. (Yeah, right. The joke's on her-she obviously doesn't know what the term MEANS.) :rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

31. Of course! My bad.

:rofl:

[no limit]

29. When the term was originally used it was not meant to apply to just commentators

it was meant to apply to everyone on the left that disagrees with this administration.

[CakeGrrl]

30. No, I disagree. I maintain that Gibbs referred to PUNDITS on the Left. n/t

[no limit]

32. Which pundits on the left want to eliminate the pentagon?

[namahage]

41. And yet they'll be the ones who mock people who take offense at attacks on Obama. n/t

[catgirl]

46. Obama doesn't need defending here

He's signing a good bill. Joke? Ha ha.

[catgirl]

45. She hates Obama

And will trash him every chance she gets. When he does something good, it will be a bad thing somehow with
the anti-Obama people.

[jenmito]

22. Unless the poster is Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, or someone similar,

s/he is NOT a member of the "professional left." :eyes:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

36. Obama almost doubled the amount spent on food stamps last year.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x562784

Nice try, though. :eyes:

[Phx_Dem]

63. They don't care about facts. They just pick up on anything that could be

construed as negative and start making snotty and, often wrong, remarks.

[JamesA1102]

11. But that was negated by increased funding in the stimulus bill.

Didn't you read the article that you linked to?

[no limit]

12. stimulus bill? What does a bill from 2009 have to do with the cuts today?

[JamesA1102]

14. Because all the stimulus money was not spent in 2009

So it does impact what is going on today.

[no limit]

15. The money for food stamps was spent. They now cut this money

You are trying to spray perfume on a pile of shit. The reason food stamps were increased in 2009 was because of the shitty economy. Today the economy is still pretty shitty.

[JamesA1102]

24. Feeding kids is a pile of $#*!???

[no limit]

33. No, taking away food stamps from people that need them is

I guess you think that as long as you help some people it's okay to hurt others?

[JamesA1102]

37. Who are food stamps being taken away from?

This bill takes from food stamps and the stimulus bill returns those funds.

[no limit]

38. What are you talking about? This bill takes food stamps away from people

just because you give them something a year ago through the stimulus bill you want a prize when you take that away?

[JamesA1102]

39. No it doesn't.

Over the last two years. Yes, under the Bush administration in 2008, when the recession had already been in place for a year, total expenditures on food stamps (SNAP program) was $37,645,000. For fiscal year 2010, spending has been $68,180,000, nearly double previous spending. This was done under the stimulus package because of the recession and steep rises in unemployment, all caused by the previous administration's policies.

Yes, we're spending more than $31 billion more on food stamps today because of President Obama and the Democrats, and these higher levels will remain in place until late 2013 and 2014 -- two more years. Then, a small portion, $2 billion, will be redirected into funds for children living in poverty who receive breakfast and lunch for free every day. It will expand the number of children eligible and raise the nutritional standards for these meals.

Yet the hatred here is so deep, and the knowledge level so shallow, that this new bill, which will aid the poorest of poor children, is being used as a cudgel. I realize that real facts never prevail over grandstanding and charlatanism, but if you want to see facts and figures on government spending on nutrition assistance programs, you can read them yourself here:

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/annual.htm

[no limit]

43. Under Reagan we spent far less on food stamps.

lets just go back to levels just above that and then pretend we aren't cutting food stamps because they are still higher today than in 1988. What great political skills you have.

[JamesA1102]

47. Administration raised Food Stamp program from $37B to $68B

Over the last two years. Yes, under the Bush administration in 2008, when the recession had already been in place for a year, total expenditures on food stamps (SNAP program) was $37,645,000. For fiscal year 2010, spending has been $68,180,000, nearly double previous spending. This was done under the stimulus package because of the recession and steep rises in unemployment, all caused by the previous administration's policies.

Yes, we're spending more than $31 billion more on food stamps today because of President Obama and the Democrats, and these higher levels will remain in place until late 2013 and 2014 -- two more years. Then, a small portion, $2 billion, will be redirected into funds for children living in poverty who receive breakfast and lunch for free every day. It will expand the number of children eligible and raise the nutritional standards for these meals.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/annual.htm

[no limit]

49. Not 2 billion, over 14 billion. This is the second cut in a matter of months

again, great, Obama rasied food stamps. He was praised for that. But now a year and a half later he is chipping away at this program. The issue is not that he raised them at the start of his term, the issue is that he is cutting them now.

I guess if I give you a 12 pack for christmas then I demand I take 2 beers back from you a year later I'm not a total asshole, right?

[JamesA1102]

50. 14 Billion????

Where did that come from???

[no limit]

52. From a cut they already made to food stamps in August. Here is the link

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20013164-503544.html

[JamesA1102]

54. Thanks for the link

but if you read it, the cut doesn't happen until 2014 and it brings food stamps back to pre-stimulus levels. Hopefully by then the economy should be strong enough so not as many people will need food stamps.

[no limit]

56. I understand that, but none of us know what will happen in 2014

so cutting things now, with very little chance to get them restored if things are as bad or worse, just isn't a good idea. And we can find the money elsewhere.

[JamesA1102]

57. True, but should we not be feeding kids now? nt

[no limit]

58. Yes. Not supporting food stamp cuts =/= not wanting to feed kids

it is a false choice.

[JamesA1102]

59. No it is not.

It is feeding kinds now versus extra funding for food stamps in 4 years.

[no limit]

60. Yes, it feeds kids today and in return will significantly cut benefits in 3 years

Benefits that these same kids will need then because many of the ones that qualify for this school lunch program are probably already on food stamps. It's so nice of you to give them food now only so you can take it away in 3 years.

And apparently 900 billion for tax cuts doesn't have to be funded. But 2.2 billion to make sure kids eat healthy needs to be taken from food stamps because Im sure the government has absolutely no other way to come up with 2.2 billion.

I appreciate honest discussion, but the fact you continue to defend this I simply can't stand anymore. So have a nice day, I'm done.

[onenote]

64. how much will it actually cut benefits three years from now?

From what I can discern, the source of the estimate that spending on food stamps will be reduced by $2.2 billion between 2013 and 2020 (not annually, but in the aggregate, or around $300 million per year) is the Congressional Budget Office. To come up with this estimate, the CBO apparently assumed that the effect of accelerating (from April 2014 to October 2013) the termination of the Recovery Act's temporary 13.6 percent boost in the maximum food snap benefit in October 2013 will result in the maximum benefit dropping back to its June 2008 levels. But that assumption is based on the further assumption that the cost of food that is used in setting the maximum benefit will still be the same in 2013 (and in 2020) as it was in 2008. That's a rather unlikely scenario. In fact, once the cost of food has increased by 13.6 percent over 2008 levels, the maximum benefit level will be back up to the same level it is today (and the same level it would have been at had the Recovery Act provision never been enacted). Indeed, if the cost of food has increased by more than 13.6 percent between now and 2020, the maximum permitted benefit will have increased over June 2008 levels, not decreased as the CBO assumes.

What people don't seem to understand is that the "cut" of $2.2 billion is not an actual cut in appropriated funds. It is the estimate of the reduced spending that will be required under the food stamp program if the temporary increase in maximum benefit expires early. BUt in order to how the termination of the program will impact spending you have to know what the maximum benefit will be when the termination occurs and to know that, you have to know whether and by how much the cost of food has increased since 2008. CBO estimates are used as "fig leafs" in order to come up with paper "savings" that cover additional spending. They are at best guesstimates in cases like this, where the major component of the spending is tied to inflation.

[JamesA1102]

65. Who says they are taking it away in three years?

In three years it may not be needed. And they've already said that they would restore the funds if needed.

I appreciate honest discussion too, but I don't walk away when someone disagrees with me. You have a nice day too.

[no limit]

67. You must really be a good judge of honesty if you believe they can restore it

[JamesA1102]

68. Thought you were done with me.

[onenote]

40. the money for food stamps hasn't been spent yet and it may not be $2.2 billion

Ordinarily, the maximum benefit under the food stamp (SNAP) program is determined by reference to an inflation adjusted "Thrifty Food Plan." As the price of food increases, the maximum benefit increases (albeit with a time lag). The Recovery Act ditched, on a temporary basis, the time-lagged COLA increase approach and upped the maximum benefit immediately by 13.6 percent. That boost was intended to provide a simulus based on the theory that folks on food stamps will spend the food stamp money (after all, they can't put it in the bank).

The twist is that how much the total cost of this increase in the maximum benefit would turn out to be can only be guesstimated. This is because of two things. First, you have to know how many people are participating in the program to know the cost and obviously we can't be certain how many will be eligible to participate two or three years from now. Second, when the 13.6 percent increase was implemented, it was tied to a freeze on the COLA adjustment. In other words, the increase of 13.6 will stay in effect until the inflation adjusted Thrifty Food Plan cost catches up. It was expected that would be in mid-2014. (Some descriptions of the recovery act provision suggest that April 2014 was a hard date, others indicate that the 13.6 would stay in effect until the inflation adjusted TFP had caught up. Because inflation has been so low, it seems unlikely that the Thrifty Food Plan cost will have grown by 13.6 percent by April 2014 and the food stamp rate will revert, not to its 2008 level, but rather to whatever it would be based on 2008 as the starting point plus inflation since that time. Since we don't know how much inflation will be for the relevant point in time, all that can be done is estimate what the difference will be. It might be higher, it might be lower.

WHat folks need to understand is that there is a "pay go" requirement in place and bills can't moved unless the Budget Office "scores" them as not adding to the deficit (with certain exceptions and subject to waivers). So when you read about "cuts" you often are reading about things that may be accounting tricks done for scoring purposes. How much really will be cut, if anything, is just a guess at this point. But what is clear is that the maximum benefit under the food stamp program if/when the 13.6 increase is terminated will be more than the maximum benefit was when the program got its stimulus "boost".

[no limit]

62. You are right, we have no idea what will happen in 2013 or 2014

yet they are making cuts to programs as if they do. They don't.

Second, pay go is a joke. 900 billion in tax breaks that won't be paid for, which includes billions for unemployment. If they get to pick and choose what qualifies for paygo and what doesn't then they could have chosen in this case as well.

[onenote]

66. Agreed that pay go is a joke. But even if the effect of the change in the law

is to reduce the maximum benefit payable in 2013 to a number that is below the maximum benefit under the Recovery Act, it is not likely to be reduced all the way back to the June 2008 level and it certainly would not stay at that level for the next seven years unless you are prepared to assume, as CBO apparently did, that the cost of food is not going to increase. If the cost of food does increase, the maximum benefit will continue to increase undermining the CBO's estimate of the impact of speeding up the termination of the temporary boost.

This example will illustrate (based on what I was told by the Dept of Agriculture): Assume that the maximum benefit in June 2008 was $100. Under the law in effect at that time, the benefit would increase along with inflation (albeit on with a year's time lag). So if inflation in certain food costs from 2008 to 2009 was 2 percent, the maximum permitted benefit would increase to $102. The REcovery Act suspended the annual inflation adjustment and in its place raised the maximum benefit by 13.6 percent ($113.60 in our example). As originally enacted, this boost was to stay in place until such time as inflation caught up the cost of food such that, under the old approach, the maximum benefit would be $113.60. So, for example, if the cost of food had grown by 3.5 percent a year, the temporary boost would stay in effect until the fourth year, at which point the maximum benefit would jump up to $114 -- the amount that it would have been at that time under the pre-Recovery Act approach. By structuring it this way, those using food stamps were given an immediate boost in the benefit, but that boost would phase itself out over time.

The change in the law, first last August when the indefinite phase out deadline was replaced with a "hard date" of April 2014 and again last week when it was pushed back to October 2013, means that the maximum benefit on the termination date might be less than the current "boosted" benefit. For instance, if the inflated cost of food in October 2013 is only 7 percent higher than it was in 2008, the maximum benefit would drop from $113.60 to $107. In that instance, there definitely would be a reduction in the benefits. The amount of that reduction would continue to phase out as the cost of food increased year to year.

The problem is that while food costs increased at an annual rate of around 3.4 percent for a number of years prior to 2008, the last two years inflation has been flat. The CBO estimate apparently assumes that will continue to be the case indefinitely, meaning that the maximum permitted rate will stay at around $100 and the amount saved will be the difference between @113.60 and $100 for the ten year estimate period (the standard period for a CBO estimate). But the assumption that food costs will remain flat for the next ten years is pretty ludicrous in my opinion. Indeed, it is more likely that the maximum benefit will not decrease at all than it is that the benefit will revert to the June 2008 level and stay there.

[Donnachaidh]

18. Congress Leaves Kids Hungry in Order to Feed Them

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/with_one_hand_giveth_before.html

Call it three card monti for the purpose of good PR and *historic* labeling. But it's just a shuffling of the deck chairs, on the backs of the working poor.

[Supersedeas]

44. Amazing how it motored right through when the threat was to filibuster everything

[onenote]

51. it passed the senate in august. but thanks for playing

[Schema Thing]

9. No.

[no limit]

13. Umm...yes.

[Donnachaidh]

17. wrong - Congress Leaves Kids Hungry in Order to Feed Them

http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/with_one_hand_giveth_before.html

[phleshdef]

20. By an administration that has added over 30 billion to the food stamp fund.

And its using money that is used to feed poor people, to feed poor people. And its spread out over 10 years.

Forgive me if I laugh at the outrage.

[Donnachaidh]

21. probably implemented to cover the deck chair shuffling of the bill everyone is lauding.

I'll reserve my judgement till I actually look at the latest pr information, and then really look at the claims.

Yeah -- I love three card monti games. :eyes:

[phleshdef]

23. Are you saying they near doubled the size of the food stamp program as a conspiracy to pass this?

[no limit]

34. As you laugh do you think that the current funding levels for food stamps are good enough?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

35. Yes, after he almost DOUBLED what we previously spent on food stamps.

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x562784

We went from $37 billion to $68 billion in ONE YEAR and you're complaining about a relatively minor cut of $2.2 billion?

[Arkana]

28. Corpofascist bankster sellout. That tears it--I'm voting Bert/Ernie in 2012.

[Skittles]

42. THIS SOUNDS GOOD

:thumbsup:

[bigwillq]

48. Cool.

:thumbsup:

[mtnsnake]

53. That is great news, but where are we going to get the money to pay for bills like this

now that we've pissed away almost another trillion dollars to the rich?

[Warren Stupidity]

55. shuffling the allotment of scraps for the peasants while handing out bags of gold to billionaires.

This is the chump change I voted for!

[dflprincess]

61. And healthy kids lead to

healthy cannon fodder later. As the military doctors discovered during WWII when many young men were turned down for service because of problems resulting from nutritional deficiencies.

Feeding hungry kids is not altogether altruistic in the U.S.