Republicans willing to take away food stamps from 3.8 million Americans to save .0011% of the budget.

Republicans man…they repeatedly find new ways for the rich to pay fewer taxes.  But the poor (you know, the people who work for the rich people)?  Fuck those guys.

New independent estimates Monday night show that as many as 3.8 million people would lose their food stamp benefits in 2014 under a House Republican plan to tighten eligibility and end state waivers for able-bodied adults who are unemployed.

This program will save $39 billion over the next 10 years.  So let’s do some math.  In 2012 the US Government’s total spending was $3.539 trillion.  If that were to stay consistent over the next decade (which it won’t, we’re actually underselling it here), that would mean that House Republicans are willing to boot 3.8 million people off food stamps to save .0011% of the federal budget over the next 10 years.

But it’s ok, because they’re the party of god.  That means they understand real Americans and are sure to go to bat for them, right?

Sorry gang, but do you realize how much your healthcare and food stamps are costing this country?  If this continues, why, we might have to ask rich people to pay their fair share in taxes.  If that happens, what will trickle down then?  Answer: the same piss, but at least millions more will have healthcare and food.

About JT Eberhard

When not defending the planet from inevitable apocalypse at the rotting hands of the undead, JT is a writer and public speaker about atheism, gay rights, and more. He spent two and a half years with the Secular Student Alliance as their first high school organizer. During that time he built the SSA’s high school program and oversaw the development of groups nationwide. JT is also the co-founder of the popular Skepticon conference and served as the events lead organizer during its first three years.

  • Zinc Avenger

    Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least richest of these, you did not do for me

  • baal

    I keep wrongly thinking that this type of blatant anti-new testament Jesus teachings would get the (R) in trouble with the ‘good’ christians. It’s also jaw droopingly immoral. They are literally trying to make people starve.

    • BrandonUB

      They are literally trying to make people starve.

      How many people do you figure would starve if SNAP eligibility was rolled back to its previous criteria?

      • baal


        • BrandonUB

          Fewer than what?

    • busterggi

      Re: ‘good’ Christians – see my comment above.

  • Paul Hemphill

    0.1%, not 0.001%, I think? 39e9 / 4e13 = 0.001, which is 0.1%.

    (but what’s a factor of 100 among friends?)

    (seriously, it’s not that big of a deal – 0.1% or 0.001%, it’s still a minuscule fraction and I’d need to see some very strong arguments before anyone could convince me that this kind of thing will do anything to fix the budget)

    • Highlander

      You are correct, it is .1% of the budget for the next ten years. Or to put it in a yearly perspective .01% of the budget for 1 year. Now lets compare that to other spending.
      Science and medical research gets 2%, education gets 2%, transportation infrastructure gets 3%, benefits for federal retirees (including veterans) 7%, safety net programs 12%, defense and military aid spending 19%, healthcare 21%, Social Security 22%.
      Food stamps are 1/1200 of the 12% spent on safety net programs. If congress could do something about the costs of those top 3 it would have way more impact than this tiny little portion that does so much. Unfortunately, Medicare and Social Security are the largest portion of the budget and voter turnout for retirees is high, so cuts to those programs are nearly impossible. If we could taper off retiree benefits for wealthy retirees (Did you know Warren Buffet draws social security and is eligible for Medicare?) we could save quite a lot.

      • Paul Hemphill

        No, not 0.01% for 1 year. The savings from the food stamps cutback would be 4 billion per year (40 billion over ten years = 4 billion per year), and the yearly budget is about 4 trillion. Still 0.1%.

        I don’t want to let that detract from the rest of your comment, though, which is sensible enough.

      • baal

        I’m always a little iffy about including SS in the overall budget as it’s a separate funding scheme.

        • Highlander

          Funding for SS and Medicare primarily comes from payroll taxes which are only paid out of a person’s wages or salary, and any amount over $110,000(in 2012) is not taxed for SS. People who are compensated above $110,000 essentially pay a lower percentage of SS taxes and the higher the compensation the lower the percentage goes. Capitol gains, dividends and interest income (significant income sources only enjoyed by the wealthy) are not taxed for Social Security or Medicare purposes. Currently SS and Medicare are taking in more money in taxes than they are paying out and they turn around and loan that money to the general fund in the form of US Savings Bonds. This loan is called the social security trust and medicare trust funds. Pretty soon however that will change and the SS system will start cashing in those bonds, which means that the general fund will have to start paying that money back and eventually there will be nothing left in the trust funds and all of the over runs will have to be covered from the general fund. Current estimates put depletion of the trust funds somewhere between 2025 and 2035 at which point the funds to save SS and Medicare will come out of General Funds. So yes the funding mechanism is different, but it is still tax dollars.

  • Abram Larson

    “Moral attitudes of dominant and privileged groups are characterized by universal self deception and hypocrisy. Since inequalities of privilege are greater than could possibly be defended rationally, the intelligence of privileged groups is usually applied to the task of inventing specious proofs for the theory that universal values spring from, and that general interests are served by, the special privileges which they hold.

    Thus, for instance, laissez faire economic theory is maintained in an industrial era through the ignorant belief that the general welfare is best served by placing the least possible political restraints upon economic activity…

    When economic power desires to be left alone it uses the philosophy of laissez faire to discourage political restraint upon economic freedom. When it wants to make use of the police power of the state to subdue rebellion and discontent in the ranks of its helots, it justifies the use of political coercion and the resulting suppression of liberties by insisting that peace is more precious than freedom and that its only desire is social peace.”

    - Reinhold Niebuhr (a theologian), Moral Man and Immoral Society 1932

  • Rob

    A billion here, a billion there, eventually you’re talking about real money

  • busterggi

    Bigfoot – more likely to find one of them than a ‘compassionate’ conservative.