Food stamps do little to alleviate hunger; increase government dependence.

The increase in food stamps is a shrewd - but brilliant - political move for Democrats to build an entire generation that will vote for them for the next 20-25 years.

Three major moves:
- Secure a thick majority of support from the lowest 40-45% of income earners on a form of government assistance, claim the other side will take that assistance away.
- Preside over an economy that keeps the earners in the 45%-60% of income afraid for their jobs and not able to feel upwardly mobile, regardless of their ambition. They're scared and will vote for the safety net.
- Win the social issues of the six-figure left-leaners in swing states.

Republicans can win state elections on a specific platform but, after five years of the current administration, Democrats have set up a nearly unbeaten system to keep the White House 80% of the time for the next 40 years.

 

exmedia, I think the freeloader number is 47 percent.

 

47% is so 2012.

I think it's up to 49% now.

 

If you're going to give out food stamps, give them out equally. I want my share, damnit!

 

Good heavens, adopting a platform which much of your constituency will find attractive. What a nefarious plot.

Which, they've made abundantly clear, they will. Hell, that's the whole point of this thread.

The precipitous decline in union membership and spread of "right-to-work" aka "fire at will" laws have been huge factors in the loss of any general belief in job security. Who's been pushing that? The same people firing up their chainsaws on the safety net.

If the GOP thinks its stands on social issues are costing it votes, maybe it needs to change some of those positions.

Unless the corporatist mass media has anything to say about it.

 

Of course, people are going to vote for the platform that favors them the most. No-brainer there. Thus when you let darn near everybody vote, this is what you get. Any wonder that the conservatives want to limit who votes? It's like a short-handed team attempting to shorten the game. Oldest trick in the book.

 

You bring that "no taxes for nothin'" tripe out every time and it continues to show you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

You should pay more attention at teabagger rallies. Essentially that's exactly what they are saying.

 

Agreed. Also why Democrats want to push the Dream Act, especially as some swing states could move permanently into their column as the demographics shift.

As long as we have a sputtering-but-not-in-full-fledged-Great-Depression economy, Democrats will keep the WH. Too many dependent people. Too many scared people.

The worst future scenario for Democrats is for the economy to magically become robust and prosperous. Then people - possibly even, gasp, people under 30! - will leave their parents' basement, their crummy apartment, buy a house and become more self-sufficient and more confident about taking control of their careers and financial future. Dems cannot allow this to happen.

 

Except wasn't that scenario playing out in about 93 percent of Clinton's term?

 

I wonder if there's even the slightest chance that you've ever, in your life, done even the tiniest bit of objective research on the correlation between economic strength and Democratic success in national elections.

 

Those who want to cut the food stamp program would be wise to remember that the $83 billion/year it costs would slash approximately 12 percent from our FY13 deficit, meaning we'd only be racking up $600 billion in new national debt each year.

Unless you're talking about Defense, Medicare, and/or Social Security, you're not talking about cutting spending in any meaningful way. You're looking to punish/judge those who make ends meet in a way unacceptable to you.