Buried Provision In House GOP Bill Would Cut Off Food Stamps To Entire Families If One Member Strikes

Wingnuts • March 2011 • Views: 1,640

Much of the bill is based upon verifying that those who receive food stamps benefits are meeting the federal requirements for doing so. However, one section buried deep within the bill adds a startling new requirement. The bill, if passed, would actually cut off all food stamp benefits to any family where one adult member is engaging in a strike against an employer:

…

The bill also includes a provision that would exempt households from losing eligibility, “if the household was eligible immediately prior to such strike, however, such family unit shall not receive an increased allotment as the result of a decrease in the income of the striking member or members of the household.”

Yet removing entire families from eligibility while a single adult family member is striking would have a chilling effect on workers who are considering going on strike for better wages, benefits, or working conditions — something that is especially alarming in light of the fact that unions are one of the fundamental building blocks of the middle class that allow people to earn wages that keep them off food stamps.

See Think progress for more and the text of the bill.

Recent Pages by iceweasel:
Witches, Satanism, and an Exorcism: A Tour Through the Rightwing Psyche Gateway Pundit Doesn't Understand What Words Mean Monday Morning Lockdown Literature Schadenfreude: One Trump Moment--Watch Ted Cruz Issues Statement, Blames the Bitches

Jump to bottom

70 comments

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 7:37:36am

Doesn't that read more along the lines of not providing increased benefits to make up for wages lost due to going on strike? I haven't given this interpretation enough thought to decide where I stand on it, but it is a lot different that cutting off benefits when a family member decides to exercise lawful right to strike.

researchok Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:23:25am

re: #1 imp_62

Doesn't that read more along the lines of not providing increased benefits to make up for wages lost due to going on strike? I haven't given this interpretation enough thought to decide where I stand on it, but it is a lot different that cutting off benefits when a family member decides to exercise lawful right to strike.

That's how I read it.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:41:41am

I am of two minds on this. On the one hand, I hate it because of its provenance. On the other, I don't think there are any guarantees that the exercise of rights needs to come without the willingness to sacrifice. Choices have consequences. And unions certainly have been creating sufficient campaign warchests; the money could as easily be used to alleviate the financial pain of striking members for a time. I do understand that the employers have access to greater resources, but even those are not limitless.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:47:50am

re: #3 imp_62

I do understand that the employers have access to greater resources, but even those are not limitless.

But they are higher. By a significant degree.

In addition, food stamps shouldn't be predicated on any sort of behavior like that. That's just wrong. I mean, should we withhold food stamps from someone who quit a job because he felt he was being made to work in an unsafe manner?

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:55:25am

This doesn't sound like it can pass constitutional muster. In any event, all I can say is: Republicans.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:56:53am

re: #4 Obdicut

But they are higher. By a significant degree.

In addition, food stamps shouldn't be predicated on any sort of behavior like that. That's just wrong. I mean, should we withhold food stamps from someone who quit a job because he felt he was being made to work in an unsafe manner?

It's a tough question. If condition are unsafe, report it to OSHA. Is it really fair to ask everybody to support subjective choices of individuals? Nobody in this country should suffer for lack of food or medical care - especially children and the infirm. But I don't think you should be allowed to make a conscious choice to draw on public support rather than work, or ask the public to support your subjective choices.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:58:01am

re: #5 Gus 802

This doesn't sound like it can pass constitutional muster. In any event, all I can say is: Republicans.

Sure it does. You can't go on strike and get unemployment benefits, why would you be allowed to get an increase in food stamps? This is why unions have strike funds.

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 8:59:00am

re: #7 RogueOne

Sure it does. You can't go on strike and get unemployment benefits, why would you be allowed to get an increase in food stamps? This is why unions have strike funds.

Yeah, yeah. God bless Murica.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:18:23am

re: #6 imp_62

It's a tough question. If condition are unsafe, report it to OSHA.

And what do you do until action is taken? You didn't actually answer the question.

Is it really fair to ask everybody to support subjective choices of individuals?

So do you want an inquiry into the circumstances of every single person receiving food stamps?

What this is doing is selectively rejecting one subjective choice. People quit, or are away from work, for any number of reasons.

But I don't think you should be allowed to make a conscious choice to draw on public support rather than work, or ask the public to support your subjective choices.

But that's not what a strike does. At all. A strike is not saying "I don't want to work, I'd rather have public support".

If someone gets unemployment insurance after quitting his job to care for a sick spouse, we give them unemployment insurance-- do you think that we shouldn't validate that subjective choice?

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:20:43am

re: #7 RogueOne

Sure it does. You can't go on strike and get unemployment benefits, why would you be allowed to get an increase in food stamps?

When you're on strike, you're still an employee.

If that family has children, Rogue, what do you think should be done? Is it okay for them to go without food because their father or mother is on strike?

Do you view them as the children who are victims of failed personal responsibility, and not your problem?

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:24:15am

But, but. We don't have any money!

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:24:56am

re: #9 Obdicut

1. Striking is a choice. A legal choice, but a choice, nonetheless. Choices bring consequences.

2. I wish to avoid having to enquire into every recipient of aid. That is why the circumstances should be strictly delineated. Unable to work, insufficient income, temporary illness. Shown upfront, supported by documentation. Periodic refiling of documentation. I don't think the public should support a choice to fall below the aid threshold.

3. Caring for a sick relative may be a legally valid reason with desirable, generally applicable public policy underpinnings. Making other subjective decisions may not be.

Are you proposing that everybody get whatever they ask for, sight unseen?

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:26:24am

re: #10 Obdicut

You can wrap whatever moral reasons you choose around it but the bottom line is they're refusing to work. You cannot refuse work and then expect your neighbors to pitch in to make up for your shortfall. This is why the union sets up a strike fund with members dues and not taxpayer money.

Second, if the family is eligible they're still eligible even if a parent goes on strike. Your asking the rest of us to chip in and involuntarily support a union strike, why would you think that's a legitimate request to make?

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:28:43am

Updated:
Believe it or not, there are already a whole host of sanctions against strikers in the current Food Stamp program. Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) has introduced a bill to do away with these.

Also, see this

No member of a family unit shall participate in a food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike.

I was lazy putting the page together. The above is the part that's important.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:29:43am

re: #12 imp_62

1. Striking is a choice. A legal choice, but a choice, nonetheless. Choices bring consequences.

So what? That's what we're talking about-- whether or not cutting of food stamps is in any way a proper consequence.

I wish to avoid having to enquire into every recipient of aid. That is why the circumstances should be strictly delineated. Unable to work, insufficient income, temporary illness. Shown upfront, supported by documentation. Periodic refiling of documentation. I don't think the public should support a choice to fall below the aid threshold.

Why? Is this just a moral ground for you?

If someone quits their job because they feel it was unsafe-- say, someone at the Massey mine quit-- you feel that they and their family should not be eligible for food stamps?

Caring for a sick relative may be a legally valid reason with desirable, generally applicable public policy underpinnings. Making other subjective decisions may not be.

Great. Do you realize this completely goes against what you were saying before about validating subjective choices?

Are you proposing that everybody get whatever they ask for, sight unseen?

Oh for fuck's sake. If you can't bother to avoid ludicrous hyperbole, don't even bother. Jesus.

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:33:33am

re: #14 iceweasel

Updated:
Believe it or not, there are already a whole host of sanctions against strikers in the current Food Stamp program. Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) has introduced a bill to do away with these.

Also, see this

No member of a family unit shall participate in a food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike.

I was lazy putting the page together. The above is the part that's important.

One would have to be a fool to think that this Republican maneuver is aimed at curbing spending. Once again it is part of a strategy of union busting -- and in this case a form of intimidation -- by the GOP.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:36:05am

re: #15 Obdicut

So what? That's what we're talking about-- whether or not cutting of food stamps is in any way a proper consequence.

Why? Is this just a moral ground for you?

If someone quits their job because they feel it was unsafe-- say, someone at the Massey mine quit-- you feel that they and their family should not be eligible for food stamps?

Great. Do you realize this completely goes against what you were saying before about validating subjective choices?

Oh for fuck's sake. If you can't bother to avoid ludicrous hyperbole, don't even bother. Jesus.

We have already established that there is no talk of cutting food stamps. The issue is not to be eligible for increases in the event of a choice to strike.

Nobody claimed life is fair. If someone at Massey had chosen to leave, they could have done so after finding a new job, or sought whistleblower protection, etc. I have been out of work often, and had to make significant concessions in terms of my quality of life, including the foods I ate and the things I did. One of the times I was out of work, I had left over differences of opinion with management. On principle. I bore the consequence of my decision, without expecting the rest of the world to pony up.

I am not engaging in hyperbole. I would simply like to know if you see any boundaries at all for geting public assistance, or whether the concept of personal responsibility and consequences exist in your thinking.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:36:29am

re: #13 RogueOne

You can wrap whatever moral reasons you choose around it but the bottom line is they're refusing to work. You cannot refuse work and then expect your neighbors to pitch in to make up for your shortfall.

Why not?

Second, if the family is eligible they're still eligible even if a parent goes on strike.

Sure. But the loss of income is going to mean that amount would need to increase to actually keep them fed.

Your asking the rest of us to chip in and involuntarily support a union strike, why would you think that's a legitimate request to make?

The government asks people to involuntarily support all sorts of things; this isn't exactly a new phenomenon. I think that, in practical reality, the only way for food stamps to work is for them to be for actual need, regardless of the source of that need. Children don't get smaller appetites just because their father got fired for being drunk. In addition to that, we need to make sure those people are on a path towards gainful employment, or, if they can't be, that they are segmented into a long-term program that helps them.

In the case of striking workers, it is a near-certainty that they will eventually return to work. The cost of providing food stamps for them in the near term is less expensive to society than workers being unable to strike if their union warchest isn't full enough.

The right of labor to organize, and to strike, is a very important one to level the playing field between naturally-organized corporations, and naturally-unorganized labor. It's important to our society at large.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:38:57am

re: #16 Gus 802

One would have to be a fool to think that this Republican maneuver is aimed at curbing spending. Once again it is part of a strategy of union busting -- and in this case a form of intimidation -- by the GOP.

If this provision is designed to cut off prior existing eligibility in the event of a strike, then it is disgusting. If it designed to prevent the loss of income from striking to create additional eligibility, it is ok.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:40:28am

re: #17 imp_62

Nobody claimed life is fair.

And?

If someone at Massey had chosen to leave, they could have done so after finding a new job, or sought whistleblower protection, etc.

So you really are saying that someone who quit Massey should be unable to get food stamps?

I bore the consequence of my decision, without expecting the rest of the world to pony up.

That's great. Why is that at all relevant? Is this not a practical thing for you, but just an ideological deal?

I am not engaging in hyperbole.

Yes, you were. This:

Are you proposing that everybody get whatever they ask for, sight unseen?

Is hyperbolic. or you seriously think i'm proposing that everyone gets 'whatever they ask for', which is simply insulting my intelligence.

I would simply like to know if you see any boundaries at all for geting public assistance, or whether the concept of personal responsibility and consequences exist in your thinking.

What the fuck, dude? Deny that you're being hyperbolic, and then say that I don't even believe in personal responsibility?

Do you understand that you just did that?

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:41:39am

re: #17 imp_62

We have already established that there is no talk of cutting food stamps. The issue is not to be eligible for increases in the event of a choice to strike.

No, it isn't. And that's my fault for not putting all the info in and assuming people would read the link.

This issue is:
No member of a family unit shall participate in a food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike.

In other words, if you go on strike, no food stamps for you unless you were already so poor you were on food stamps.

Carry on. Apologies again for not making my post clearer.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:44:25am

re: #20 Obdicut

And?

So you really are saying that someone who quit Massey should be unable to get food stamps?

That's great. Why is that at all relevant? Is this not a practical thing for you, but just an ideological deal?

Yes, you were. This:

Is hyperbolic. or you seriously think i'm proposing that everyone gets 'whatever they ask for', which is simply insulting my intelligence.

What the fuck, dude? Deny that you're being hyperbolic, and then say that I don't even believe in personal responsibility?

Do you understand that you just did that?

Your argumentation is devoid of the single most important element of reasonable dialogue:
Falsifiability. It is impossible to discuss - or argue - with someone who is going to consistently shift their hypothesis to be correct, while putting the opposing argument out of bounds.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:47:34am

re: #22 imp_62

What are you talking about? In what way did I shift my hypothesis?

And again:

Do you realize you just denied being hyperbolic, and then immediately went on to suggest I didn't even have a concept of personal responsibility?

Doesn't that give you the least bit of pause?

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:48:07am

re: #20 Obdicut

Dude, downding me til the cows come home. You are arguing from the heart, which is fine, but you are unwilling to entertain anybody else's opinion as valid, which is not.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:49:18am

re: #18 Obdicut

A union member doesn't wake up one morning and go on strike. These folks know it's coming, they vote on it. They have time to plan, prepare and, again, they pay dues into a fund they use to support themselves during a strike. The NFL players aren't getting paid now, should we all kick in and pick up a portion of their food bill?

If people want to support a strike by refusing to cross a picket line or supporting a boycott that is their right but to ask the rest of us to come to the aid of a private organization is going too far.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:50:25am

re: #23 Obdicut

I simply asked you a question: What are the limitations of public assistance? Should everybody get whatever they ask for? You decided to interpret that as you chose. Whatever. Time to move on.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:51:18am

re: #24 imp_62

Dude, downding me til the cows come home. You are arguing from the heart, which is fine, but you are unwilling to entertain anybody else's opinion as valid, which is not.

I've constructed an argument. It's got logic and stuff in it. You, on the other hand, are content to impugn me by saying I don't even have a concept of personal responsibility and say that I'm shifting my hypothesis-- not bothering, of course, to actually show how I'm doing that.

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:51:32am

re: #16 Gus 802

One would have to be a fool to think that this Republican maneuver is aimed at curbing spending. Once again it is part of a strategy of union busting -- and in this case a form of intimidation -- by the GOP.

Yep. And it's going on all over the place.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:52:35am

re: #26 imp_62

I simply asked you a question: What are the limitations of public assistance? Should everybody get whatever they ask for? You decided to interpret that as you chose. Whatever. Time to move on.

I interpreted it exactly as you asked: a hyperbolic position that nobody would hold.

Do you think there is anyone, at all, barring those under the age of eight, who believes that "everybody should get whatever they ask for?"

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:53:36am

re: #21 iceweasel

That's worded pretty badly.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:54:57am

re: #29 Obdicut

I interpreted it exactly as you asked: a hyperbolic position that nobody would hold.

Do you think there is anyone, at all, barring those under the age of eight, who believes that "everybody should get whatever they ask for?"

Apparently you do, since you refuse to answer the question.

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:55:39am

re: #30 RogueOne

That's worded pretty badly.

What, me or the legislation? I'll concede both.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:55:44am

re: #25 RogueOne

The NFL players aren't getting paid now, should we all kick in and pick up a portion of their food bill?

If any of them fit the income eligibility then yes, absolutely. A lot of those guys have no fucking sense with their money and spend all of it and get into terrible debt. Lots of them are actually on public assistance pretty quick after leaving the league.

They have time to plan, prepare and, again, they pay dues into a fund they use to support themselves during a strike.

So what? They're striking for living wages and you're saying that they need to save up for that strike-- with the company knowing that, knowing that they can't last longer than the dues hold out? That would turn every strike into a 'deepest pockets wins' scenario. Which sometimes is going to be the union, more often the company-- but why should that be the deciding factor?

If people want to support a strike by refusing to cross a picket line or supporting a boycott that is their right but to ask the rest of us to come to the aid of a private organization is going too far.

We're not. We're asking people to come to the aid of individuals and their families who are going to go hungry otherwise. The union doesn't get food stamps.

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:56:38am

Hey. Wait a minute. According to the righties union members make the big money. Why would they need food stamps if they go on strike? Shouldn't they have ample saving to cover that period? At least according to Republicans.

So tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. That also marks the immediate growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:57:53am

re: #32 iceweasel

What, me or the legislation? I'll concede both.

Ha! Not you, the legislative phrasing.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:58:17am

re: #31 imp_62

Apparently you do, since you refuse to answer the question.

Jesus. I say that it's a position nobody would hold, and you say that obviously I hold that position?

What the hell, dude? How can that make sense in your head?

Since you're obviously going to refuse to get over this: I don't think that people should get whatever they ask for, no. I think that we should have a more robust safety net, with better public housing, longer-term programs, better get-back-to-work initiatives, etc. I feel that what we have now leads to homelessness for too many families, which is an enormous economic cost to the nation and I'd prefer to address it before it got to that stage.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:59:14am

re: #33 Obdicut

Should we also give striking workers unemployment benefits?

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:00:18am

re: #37 RogueOne

Should we also give striking workers unemployment benefits?

Gee, I almost feel like I already answered that question.

Oh wait, I did. In post 10.

Hey, you didn't answer this question from that post, though-- care to give it a whack?

If that family has children, Rogue, what do you think should be done? Is it okay for them to go without food because their father or mother is on strike?

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:03:38am

re: #28 iceweasel

Yep. And it's going on all over the place.

The sad part is that the Republicans have been more effective in spreading the anti-union propaganda and memes while the Democrats barely made a dent with the true cause of our economic turmoil: Wall Street, financial firms, etc.

Once again the little guys take the brunt of the fear mongering right wingers. So yeah, no benefits for striking families but keep the trough well stocked to feed our super rich masters in the form of huge tax-breaks and deductions. I'm now wondering how many people do receive food stamps while striking and when was the last time we saw a widespread strike.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:05:37am

re: #36 Obdicut

Jesus. I say that it's a position nobody would hold, and you say that obviously I hold that position?

What the hell, dude? How can that make sense in your head?

Since you're obviously going to refuse to get over this: I don't think that people should get whatever they ask for, no. I think that we should have a more robust safety net, with better public housing, longer-term programs, better get-back-to-work initiatives, etc. I feel that what we have now leads to homelessness for too many families, which is an enormous economic cost to the nation and I'd prefer to address it before it got to that stage.

I agree with the above. Where we appear to disagree is on the responsibility of all of us to compensate individuals for the consequences of exercising legal rights. One of the things you mention is that people are "striking for a living wage". I don't think this is always true, and I don't think every strike is justified. I support the right to strike, and bargain collectively - I posted a piece on the Triangle Shirtwaist fire on the fron page.

The legislation iceweasel posted about here probably sucks, and is probably subversive to workers' rights. But a discussion about the limits of, and access to, public support is perfectly legitimate without getting frustrated.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:07:49am

re: #38 Obdicut

Gee, I almost feel like I already answered that question.

Oh wait, I did. In post 10.

Hey, you didn't answer this question from that post, though-- care to give it a whack?

I'm just trying to see what level of union support you believe the rest of us have to pay for.

The answer to your question is "No". A person joins a union and pays dues. Part of those dues go towards a strike fund to take care of the employee in the case of a strike. They then vote to go on strike. Every action was completely voluntary. If they aren't being taken care of to the level they feel is necessary then that's a problem between them and their union.

If a member of AFA is boycotting McDonalds I don't feel it's my responsibility to help with the price difference between the McDonalds dollar menu and what they'll have to pay at Hardees.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:12:41am

re: #40 imp_62

One of the things you mention is that people are "striking for a living wage". I don't think this is always true, and I don't think every strike is justified.

I don't think everyone is striking for a living wage; I'm pointing out that if they are, cutting off any assistance would render them rather helpless.

As far as strikes being 'justified'-- I'm not sure what you mean. There are laws governing strikes, and lockouts.

But a discussion about the limits of, and access to, public support is perfectly legitimate without getting frustrated.

I'm mostly frustrated with the insane hyperbole that you've engaged in. It was really pretty astonishing for you to deny using hyperbole and then accuse me of not even having a concept of personal responsibility in my thinking.

Maybe in your world, that's not a really insulting thing to allege. It is in mine.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:18:40am

re: #41 RogueOne

The answer to your question is "No".

My question was this:

If that family has children, Rogue, what do you think should be done? Is it okay for them to go without food because their father or mother is on strike?

So how do you go about making sure those children don't go without food, Rogue?

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:20:11am

re: #42 Obdicut

I don't think everyone is striking for a living wage; I'm pointing out that if they are, cutting off any assistance would render them rather helpless.

As far as strikes being 'justified'-- I'm not sure what you mean. There are laws governing strikes, and lockouts.

I'm mostly frustrated with the insane hyperbole that you've engaged in. It was really pretty astonishing for you to deny using hyperbole and then accuse me of not even having a concept of personal responsibility in my thinking.

Maybe in your world, that's not a really insulting thing to allege. It is in mine.

"insane hyperbole"? Come on. Really? Pot, Kettle, etc. If you want to have issues based discussion, you need to stop figuratively wagging your finger and yelling. It's hard to see past the ad hominem attacks and stay on topic.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:23:38am

re: #44 imp_62

"insane hyperbole"? Come on. Really? Pot, Kettle, etc.

Yes, really. How have I been hyperbolic, please?

. If you want to have issues based discussion, you need to stop figuratively wagging your finger and yelling. It's hard to see past the ad hominem attacks and stay on topic.

I didn't make any ad hominem attacks on you, though. I never said that your argument should be ignored because of any personal qualities that you had.

You have, so far, accused me of fallaciously moving my hypothesis-- without bothering to actually show that-- and now you've said I keep attacking you ad hominem-- without actually demonstrating that.

If you're going to make accusations, please back them up. Otherwise, what the hell are you doing?

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:24:22am

re: #41 RogueOne

I'm just trying to see what level of union support you believe the rest of us have to pay for.

The answer to your question is "No". A person joins a union and pays dues. Part of those dues go towards a strike fund to take care of the employee in the case of a strike. They then vote to go on strike. Every action was completely voluntary. If they aren't being taken care of to the level they feel is necessary then that's a problem between them and their union.

If a member of AFA is boycotting McDonalds I don't feel it's my responsibility to help with the price difference between the McDonalds dollar menu and what they'll have to pay at Hardees.

What's the big deal? By being tax exempt society effectively pays for a bunch of people to form clubs that talk to the great non-existent spaghetti monster in the sky.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:25:46am

re: #46 Gus 802

What's the big deal? By being tax exempt society effectively pays for a bunch of people to form clubs that talk to the great non-existent spaghetti monster in the sky.

This might not come as a shock but I think churches should have to pay property taxes.

tnguitarist Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:25:56am

The Republicans are becoming a bunch of soulless libertarians. It's easy to approach cost-cutting when you just look at the numbers. If we cut x, then y. It becomes harder (or should) when you add the human element. When i debate with libertarian friends, I always ask them, "What do you think should happen to this child that is hungry?"; "What do you propose we do about this single mother?". There are people out there that abuse the system. I know of at least one personally. My conscience will not let me watch people go hungry. I donate time and money to help any way I can, but I can't feed them all.

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:30:46am

Name one national union that's currently on strike right now. They didn't even go on strike in Wisconsin.

As usual, the Republicans are engaging in fear mongering based on something that barely occurs in this country.

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:32:29am

re: #45 Obdicut

Obdicut, you accuse me of engaging in "insane hyperbole". You don't consider that at all hypoerbolic? Seriously?

What I am doing is being the adult and disengaging from the conversation. You have a clear preference for discussing things with people who already agree with you. Your m.o. for dealing with challenges to your hypotheses is to lash out, make accusations of intellectual dishonesty and hyperbole, and bang away with questions to which you will never receive a satisfactory answer. Note that once you were finally kind enough to answer my question, it turned out we agreed on the core issues. There was no way to determine the common ground while you were insisting on delegitimizing the question in the first instance.

Your dialectic methodology is highly rhetorical, inflammatory, and more suited to delivering public diatribes. You are likely a gifted public speaker, but that does not translate into being able to sustain highly detailed, issues-driven sensible argumentation. When questioned, you go on the attack. You have a predilection for positioning your opponent's argument as offensive to basic decency, and implying base motives to their position.

Watch, you'll attack me now.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:35:34am

Ice, I wanted to send this to you privately but I can't seem to find out how to do it. I try hard to stay out of blog bickering (unless it's patterico) but I've recently noticed what I think is an incredibly amount of pretty vile accusations and harsh smears directed at you. Normally I'd keep my mouth shut (I don't do drama) but the level of vitriol is so disturbing I felt I had to say something, not sure what but something. You and I don't agree on every issue but you've always been nothing but pleasant. I can tell you come by your positions honestly and even if I don't agree I can respect that. I've always looked forward to your comments and pages and I hope to see you around for quite awhile.

At some point, somehow, we're going to have to get a beer. You can even bring jimmah/////!

Romantic Heretic Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:36:22am

re: #13 RogueOne

You cannot refuse work and then expect your neighbors to pitch in to make up for your shortfall.

Why not? Is going on strike the same as refusing to work? Are children to go hungry while their parents are fighting for better working conditions?

Are employees property of their employers?

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:36:23am

re: #50 imp_62

Obdicut, you accuse me of engaging in "insane hyperbole". You don't consider that at all hypoerbolic? Seriously?

No, I don't. I found your use of hyperbole while you were denying that you used hyperbole to be insane.

Again:

You have accused me of multiple things, and you haven't substantiated any of them. At all. You accused me of moving my hypothesis and attacking you in ad hominem attacks-- neither of which actually happened.

If you want to lecture other people on their terrible, terrible behavior, having made unsubstantiated attacks on them that you didn't bother to even attempt to validate kind of cuts into your credibility a little.

LIke this:

You have a predilection for positioning your opponent's argument as offensive to basic decency, and implying base motives to their position.

I didn't talk, at all, ever, in the least, about your motives. Yet here you are, asserting that I do. What's up with that? Why do you think it's okay to make an accusation that heavy and not try to support it in the least?

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:43:32am

re: #51 RogueOne

Ice, I wanted to send this to you privately but I can't seem to find out how to do it. I try hard to stay out of blog bickering (unless it's patterico) but I've recently noticed what I think is an incredibly amount of pretty vile accusations and harsh smears directed at you. Normally I'd keep my mouth shut (I don't do drama) but the level of vitriol is so disturbing I felt I had to say something, not sure what but something. You and I don't agree on every issue but you've always been nothing but pleasant. I can tell you come by your positions honestly and even if I don't agree I can respect that. I've always looked forward to your comments and pages and I hope to see you around for quite awhile.

At some point, somehow, we're going to have to get a beer. You can even bring jimmah///!

Thanks rogue. Not sure what you're referring to though. Is this on the stalker site?

shutdown Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:47:05am

re: #53 Obdicut

I quote:

Oh for fuck's sake. If you can't bother to avoid ludicrous hyperbole, don't even bother. Jesus.
I'm mostly frustrated with the insane hyperbole that you've engaged in.

If that family has children, Rogue, what do you think should be done? Is it okay for them to go without food because their father or mother is on strike?

Do you view them as the children who are victims of failed personal responsibility, and not your problem?

So how do you go about making sure those children don't go without food, Rogue?

I interpreted it exactly as you asked: a hyperbolic position that nobody would hold.

Do you think there is anyone, at all, barring those under the age of eight, who believes that "everybody should get whatever they ask for?"

So you really are saying that someone who quit Massey should be unable to get food stamps?

Are you proposing that everybody get whatever they ask for, sight unseen?
Is hyperbolic. or you seriously think i'm proposing that everyone gets 'whatever they ask for', which is simply insulting my intelligence.

I would simply like to know if you see any boundaries at all for geting public assistance, or whether the concept of personal responsibility and consequences exist in your thinking.

What the fuck, dude? Deny that you're being hyperbolic, and then say that I don't even believe in personal responsibility?

Do you understand that you just did that?

You refuse to answer questions until cornered, then you lash out, and for good measure, add some vitriol and make the other person out to be somehow attacking you.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:49:17am

re: #54 iceweasel

Thanks rogue. Not sure what you're referring to though. Is this on the stalker site?

Yeah. DF was talking about it the other night (again/) and let my curiosity get the best of me. (Won't let that happen again) It seems some people hold a serious grudge and they have a not-so-nice spot in their heart for you.

RogueOne Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:50:29am

Off again. I have serious work to do. I need a nap so I can stay up and watch the Butler game. Doesn't start until 10pm.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:52:20am

re: #55 imp_62

What, from those quotes, is supposed to prove anything about me?

Which of those was an ad hominem, or a moving of my hypothesis, or an accusation about motive?

BARACK THE VOTE Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:52:50am

re: #56 RogueOne

Yeah. DF was talking about it the other night (again/) and let my curiosity get the best of me. (Won't let that happen again) It seems some people hold a serious grudge and they have a not-so-nice spot in their heart for you.

There's no reason for that site even to be mentioned. All it does is give them traffic and give them what they want-- attention.
Loads of angry obsessives who have stalked Charles for years and are pretty much driven nuts since Jimmah and I met here.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:57:06am

re: #59 iceweasel

Yep. They're a pack of drama llamas.

Image: DL.jpg

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 10:59:57am

• Highest amount of cash on hand in history.
• Record profits by Fortune 500 companies.
• Continuing wealth growth by the top 2 percent earners.
• Continuing stagnation of salaries for the other 98 percent.
• Continuing poor job growth.

And the Republican are looking at the rare union worker that goes on strike and collect food stamps?

I can't believe we're even having this conversation.

webevintage Thu, Mar 24, 2011 11:05:06am

Jesus Christ.
I click in here to read the comments assuming that no one would support such a cold-hearted provision.
Except look, some people think this is a GOOD idea.

Here's the deal...this is about union busting.
That is all it is about...that and making you hate union members who have the nerve to go on strike.
If you make it harder to strike, if you threaten the ability of families to receive emergency food stamps in a strike situation then you have the ability to put enough fear into union members so they will not strike.
This is from the Koch Brothers play book people. This is about making sure that the rich dudes who own corporations have something else to hold over their employees in case they are even thinking about voting in a union.

This is like the South Dakota abortion law.
They say they want to make sure women are sure before they have an abortion (because God knows we are such infants we don't know our own minds) hence the 3 day waiting period, BUT the truth is the law is actually about limiting access to abortions in SD.

Obdicut Thu, Mar 24, 2011 11:06:10am

re: #61 Gus 802

Yep. The miniscule percentage of the 7% of unionized workers who go on strike-- that's obviously the real problem in this country. That's why everyone should have to document their need for food stamps so well. We can't have young bucks buying T-bone steaks, after all.

I just got a great old Herblock cartoon book.

Amazing how many of these issues are exactly laid out in there.

Gus Thu, Mar 24, 2011 11:17:46am

re: #63 Obdicut

Yep. The miniscule percentage of the 7% of unionized workers who go on strike-- that's obviously the real problem in this country. That's why everyone should have to document their need for food stamps so well. We can't have young bucks buying T-bone steaks, after all.

I just got a great old Herblock cartoon book.

Amazing how many of these issues are exactly laid out in there.

Everyone knows how easy it is to get food stamps and how families that do receive food stamps are free to purchase whatever they please! I say sarcastically. Do these people even stop and wonder about a so called union member that's already receiving food stamps? If a family is receiving food stamps and are currently a member of a union that can only mean that they are still somewhat impoverished. Yes, those SEIU janitors are really bringing home the big money! "Eating steaks with their Cadillac Escalades and wide screen TVs" and other such Fox Nation stereotypes.

Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Mar 24, 2011 11:18:59am

re: #60 Obdicut

Yep. They're a pack of drama llamas.

Image: DL.jpg

If a drama llama squeals in the night, does anybody hear, or care?

DF is a good guy but he needs to catch up to the rest of us and not bother looking there imo.

Ayeless in Ghazi Thu, Mar 24, 2011 11:22:10am

re: #64 Gus 802

Yes, those SEIU janitors are really bringing home the big money! "Eating steaks with their Cadillac Escalades and wide screen TVs" and other such Fox Nation stereotypes.

Not to mention the $500 sneakers and - gasp - the cell phone/

Dancing along the light of day Thu, Mar 24, 2011 5:52:41pm

I'd like some $500 sneakers, but I can't afford them.
LOL!

Dark_Falcon Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:12:16pm

re: #6 imp_62

It's a tough question. If condition are unsafe, report it to OSHA. Is it really fair to ask everybody to support subjective choices of individuals? Nobody in this country should suffer for lack of food or medical care - especially children and the infirm. But I don't think you should be allowed to make a conscious choice to draw on public support rather than work, or ask the public to support your subjective choices.

That's how I feel, too. Private sector unions clearly have the right to strike, but I don't think I should be required to support that strike. But I said most of what I had to say on this bill last night.

Lidane Thu, Mar 24, 2011 9:29:42pm

re: #68 Dark_Falcon