Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

    Originally posted by MattInFla View Post
    I agree with Danny in a way. There are definitely things I would see cut before food stamps.

    For instance, every penny of aid to places like Syria, Libya, Egypt, and most of all Pakistan. Could probably make up the $4 billion / year from the budget right there.

    Matt
    I will agree that those do need to be eliminated but so does the waste in entitlements. Four billion a year in an 80 billion dollar program is not excessive.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

      Originally posted by Danny View Post
      House Votes To Cut Food Stamps By $40 Billion



      You can't make this stuff up. At a time when the income disparity is so wide and the people at the top have done so well, it boggles the mind how anyone thinks taking food away from poor people is a good idea. The explanation that it will help them is just...LOL.

      Surely history will look back and say, the Republican plan that gutted food stamps in 2013 really served as a spring board to jump start the economy.
      Are you even vaguely aware huge swaths of the food stamp program amount to corporate welfare for agri-business? You a monsantos fanboy now?

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        @TeaPartyCat: Now that the GOP cut food stamps to 3.8 million people, we can finally give Rep. Phil Gingrey a raise so he's not "stuck making $172,000."

        Lol

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

          There are so many problems with this, it is tough to know where to start. But, from an economic timing perspective, this may be the worst time to start this political sourced fight.

          What we are really talking about here...

          If you look up the total costs of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) you will find that 2012 had a total cost of some $78.455 Billion. In 2008 those costs were roughly $33.174 Billion, or roughly a 136.49% from then to 2012. 2013 are still estimates at best, but probably somewhere in the CBO reporting area of saying $81.5 to $82.3 Billion range. 2012 saw a participation of some 46.6 million in the program, up from 28.2 million reported for 2008. 65.24% increase in the same period. Couple things to note, the cost of the program per person have become just as much of an issue as the number of people in the program. You can point to increased food costs as one culprit, you can look at how the legislative wording of "Average Benefit per Person" that has changed slightly as another (in the area of "Childless Adults when work is scarce.")

          A $39 Billion cut over 10 years with this attempt is actually worse than previous attempts by House Republicans or the Senate Farm Committee to either sever SNAP from Farm Bills or attempt to pass the bill in multiple parts. With this latest attempt (which is DOA in the Senate anyway) would average cut 2.8 million out of the program over the 10 year period. Both categories too, Childless Adults and Qualifying Families at roughly 5% cuts per year... give or take.

          My opinion...

          Economically even though SNAP is not the most beneficial in terms of government spending equating to economic indicators impact, there is a social concern over the timing of the cuts.

          There is no doubt that all entitlements and social safety nets have their fair share of fraud and system abuses. But at this time these cuts will have other impacts. If we can conclude that job creation (still less than 200K per month) still lags behind population increases then you have to consider that these cuts in today's economy will lead to other issues. Upticks in crime being one, stronger attempts at fraud being another as more in need compete for less from assistance. Contrary to popular belief not all of these people cut will all of a sudden go back to work, confirmed by a small note buried in the legislation that allows states to ask for waver from the new "3 month rule."

          House Republicans would have had a better fight (politically and MSM reported) looking for $39 Billion in other areas of government spending to cut. As Matt pointed out there is plenty out there to cut from foreign affairs handling, fraud in actual Farm Subsidy spending, departments like the IRS or NSA or NTSB (take your pick.)

          Odds are Democrats will make all kinds of noise about Republicans picking on the Poor. And why not? If you can argue well (which I can) that this recovery is pretty much all about the rich first *and* that we have developed an economic model of total dependence on government deficit spending going forward for decades than these cuts to SNAP will be looked at as "class warfare." I don't buy it as I've expressed many times my dislike of that politically made up term, but the majority of the voters will. All it will take is a tax cut request for the wealthy and the House becomes Democrat for Obama's last 2 years.

          Simply put, Republicans should have gone after "wasteful" spending in other areas full of fraud before going after SNAP. We already know this economic model will put an entire generation on the dole, perhaps for life but going after the poorest of the poor will have consequence. This one will politically hurt House Republicans, no matter how well intentioned the bill is. Timing and who is in the crosshairs.

          (BTW, the sources for these numbers are from CBO reporting and the usda.gov website.)

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

            Originally posted by Danny View Post
            Monetarily there has been a little movement (expiration of Bush tax cuts). Health care was huge and will be huge but generally in terms of addressing income inequality not much has changed. A real progressive push would see all loopholes eliminated, installation of a heavy death tax, the buffet tax, a financial transactions tax, all homeowners refinanced at lower rates, student loan rated slashed, a $1T/year infrastructure stimulus, mandatory universal healthcare etc etc. The country would boom like never before.
            Heavy death tax. Don't achieve anything in your life, because your descendants won't get shit. The government knows better than you do they're worthless and don't deserve it, and you aren't smart enough to figure that out.

            The Buffet tax...yeah, you've noticed Warren Buffet doesn't pay his taxes right?

            A financial transactions tax....we already have one, it's called a sales tax.

            Home loans are at 4% or less if you have decent credit. It can't get any lower and still have enough profit in it to cover the defaults.

            Student loans...saddling students with massive debt when they graduate. There's a great idea if you like bankruptcy.

            We tried a 1T stimulus. We didn't get shit out of it. Your lord and master Owebama's campaign contributors made out like bandits though, there's even some fancy empty buildings left as reminders of that idiocy.

            Yeah...the country would boom all right, as in implode. BOOM!!

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

              It would have been better to tank the NSA and end all foreign aid. That would have resulted in more than $100 billion/year in cuts and would have resulted in more than $1 trillion over a ten year span. While food stamps obviously need to be cut and anti-fraud guidelines need to be enforced, this can wait until such a time when the economic recovery isn't illusory at best. Tell me. Do we really need that big NSA data storage facility in Wyoming? I think we need to do away with the NSA and all foreign aid before we start starving the poor out of existence.

              I'm with Sluggo on this. Wrong fight, wrong time.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

                Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
                Simply put, Republicans should have gone after "wasteful" spending in other areas full of fraud before going after SNAP. We already know this economic model will put an entire generation on the dole, perhaps for life but going after the poorest of the poor will have consequence. This one will politically hurt House Republicans, no matter how well intentioned the bill is. Timing and who is in the crosshairs.

                (BTW, the sources for these numbers are from CBO reporting and the usda.gov website.)
                Yeah, and name me one area of waste, fraud and abuse they've "gone after" that's materialized? We hear a lot about it, but none of it ever gets cut, because that would necessitate cutting federal jobs, and firing the incompetent. That's just not going to happen in Washington DC.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

                  Originally posted by Danny View Post
                  House Votes To Cut Food Stamps By $40 Billion

                  You can't make this stuff up. At a time when the income disparity is so wide and the people at the top have done so well, it boggles the mind how anyone thinks taking food away from poor people is a good idea. The explanation that it will help them is just...LOL.

                  Surely history will look back and say, the Republican plan that gutted food stamps in 2013 really served as a spring board to jump start the economy.
                  This is taking it too far Danny, the SNAP program is not about economic impact but social concern from the economic fallout. In the grand scheme of things spending on entitlement does not have all that high of a rank in the category of economic stimulus. Not near as high as infrastructure and technology.

                  The real truth is if Obama and crew were serious with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 back then we might be in a better position today, and without so much strain on SNAP and Welfare programs. Instead they decided to squander the spending, putting us on a terrible economic model going forward. Continued government dependence, the increases in these programs during this "recovery" prove that conclusively.

                  House Republicans will get backlash for whom they are going after of course, but this was all avoidable if Obama acted as the Keynesian back in 2009 that he claims to have been this entire time.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

                    Originally posted by RRAHH View Post
                    It would have been better to tank the NSA and end all foreign aid. That would have resulted in more than $100 billion/year in cuts and would have resulted in more than $1 trillion over a ten year span. While food stamps obviously need to be cut and anti-fraud guidelines need to be enforced, this can wait until such a time when the economic recovery isn't illusory at best. Tell me. Do we really need that big NSA data storage facility in Wyoming? I think we need to do away with the NSA and all foreign aid before we start starving the poor out of existence.

                    I'm with Sluggo on this. Wrong fight, wrong time.
                    Cut both. There will never be a time to have that fight, because it's going to force people to accept some personal responsibility. An outmoded concept it seems these days.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

                      Originally posted by 9aces View Post
                      Cut both. There will never be a time to have that fight, because it's going to force people to accept some personal responsibility. An outmoded concept it seems these days.
                      Yeah, I agree. I just think that the NSA and foreign aid should be cut first.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: House votes to cut food stamps by $40 billion

                        Originally posted by Danny View Post
                        @TeaPartyCat: Now that the GOP cut food stamps to 3.8 million people, we can finally give Rep. Phil Gingrey a raise so he's not "stuck making $172,000."

                        Lol
                        Read the http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/econ...-spending.html thread.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?

                        Working...
                        X