Republican cuts hurting big retaliers bottom line, more loss of Republican support?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by PracticalMac, Apr 3, 2014.

  1. PracticalMac macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #1
    SNAP, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, aka Food Stamp program was reduced by Republicans recently, and the effects have been acutely felt by major food retailers, especially the discount seller Wal-Mart.

    Naturally, the big retailers want SNAP to be reinstated, even expanded, because it is proving to be a major income source, so whoever talks increasing SNAP will get the favor of those nation wide multi-billion dollar companies, including Kroger, Safeway, Target, and so on. :rolleyes:

    Ironically, recent reports also state some 15% of Wal-Marts employees need SNAP to even have enough food to eat!
    SNAP reductions will put internal pressure with more unhappy workers who work the day on an empty stomach, naturally be less productive. :(

    Wal-Mart is located in hard working Republican leaning rural areas across the country, so Republican actions to reduce SNAP is going to hurt them as formally staunch Republicans vote with this stomachs, not their ideology.

    Once again the Republicans short sighted and idiotic policies mutilate themselves and hurt the USA.



    Think about it, SNAP has now become way for companies to not increase wages, taking advantage of what was once an emergency program like Unemployment as a permanent subsidy for its employees.
    So ironic, the free market country is actually (by accident or choice) supporting a socialist country!! :eek:

    This is a horrible situation IMHO, and the only way to fix it is, yes, increase the minimum wage, something that the Republicans are dragging their feet on. :mad:

    Strange bedfellows.
     
  2. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #2
    Remind me again, who signed that bill into law? What party does he belong to? Didn't the Senate vote on this, too?
     
  3. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #3
    Here's a better idea. Instead of reinstating the handout checks, raise minimum wages and force these whiney retailers to pay their employees a livable wage. Put more money in their pockets and they will spend more.

    At the same time, we can end the government's subsidizing the big box retailers' labor force.

    You do realize that SNAP was temporarily raised as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment act in 2009? They increased it for a term of 4 years to help families dealing with the massive recession. These temporary raises simply expired and Congress didn't vote to renew them.

    So frankly, trying to spin this either way as "democrats cut SNAP" or "republicans cut SNAP" is wrong. Nobody cut it, it expired and wasn't renewed. There is a difference.
     
  4. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #4
    Irrelevant.

    The end result is the Republicans get the credit (or however one words this) for the cuts.
    After all, Republican mantra is "cut spending", so they cut spending.
    Not my fault it hurts their chances to stay in political power, or even survive as a party.
     
  5. ElectronGuru macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2013
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #5
    While I agree with you in principal, in practice, Ds would have supported an extension and would do so now if not outnumbered. Rs could have supported an extension and choose not to. To the extent that inaction equals a choice, this is a choice being made by the Rs.

    /helplessness
     
  6. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #6
    Let me get this straight, the President gets the credit for reducing the annual deficit but the Republicans in the House get the blame for the programs that were cut. Got it!
     
  7. oldhifi macrumors 6502a

    oldhifi

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Location:
    USA
    #7

    Please review your American history book and see how our government works. Democrats are in charge.
     
  8. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #8
    Because that is exactly what the Republicans clamored for.
    It was on the news daily for a while,
    It was THE goal of the Republicans, they DEMANDED reductions, so yes, the SNAP reduction is 150% owned by the Republicans.

    So you are saying the Republican party does not exist?

    Oh, you are in charge, so you must be a Democrat.
     
  9. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    GOP campaign slogan 2016: Tough love, let the slackers beg from the gutter, it's the only way they will learn.
     
  10. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #10
    Actually, yes.

    The POTUS can submit a budget that does influence the annual deficit, if provisions of his proposal gets passed. If it gets passed, and the reduction of the deficit happens, the POTUS gets credit.

    The reciprocal occurs as well; If the Reds implemented the cuts that cause this, in turn they also get the backlash for their cuts.

    This happens for any party, and any POTUS.

    BL.
     
  11. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #11
    I guess where I have a problem understanding is when I hear the President taking victory laps for the amount of deficit reduction that he has brought about during his term in office. Yet, he never mentions or gives any credit to the Republicans. I was under the impression that President Obama was the man in charge. The Democrats won and us, Republicans could sit on our hands.

    Now, I come to find out that the Democrats are really so weak that the minority party is really in control and Barrack H. Obama is just a rubber stamping figurehead.
     
  12. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #12
    Funnily enough; Bush was the same way, when the blues had both the House and Senate in 2006. Could he also have been the same rubber stamping figurehead you label Obama as?

    Or is it that people here really are not understanding how a bicameral government works? For there to be a state of fully 'in charge', a single party would have to have both House and (supermajority) Senate, plus POTUS. Then, the opposing party would be able to do nothing but sit on their hands or play jacks while the other party gets work done. Unless that situation exists (and it only has for 6 out of the past 14 years (I am not including 2008 - 2012, because there was no true 'supermajority', as Independents could caucus with whichever party they choose), we are only at a neutral state, and stalemate at that.

    I guess oldhifi had it right; people need to review their American history book and see how our government works.

    BL.
     
  13. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #13
    When George Walker Bush had an opposing House & Senate he was still able to get things done. When William Jefferson Clinton had an opposing House & Senate he was able to get things done. Truthfully, that was when Clinton got the budget balanced. That is because they are leaders.

    This President has not been held responsible for anything since the day he walked into office but has received all glory and praise for anything that has went right.

    Tell me how you can hold the Republicans responsible for cutting the spending but give President Obama the credit for reducing the deficit?
     
  14. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #14
    What the hell do you want President Obama to do when the republicans filibuster every single piece of legislation that comes up? Or is that all Obama's fault too?
     
  15. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #15
    Simple.

    Now, please tell us which political party is in charge of the House of Representatives.

    BL.
     
  16. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #16
    A leader, well leads. You negotiate and work out the differences. This President draws lines in the sand. I haven't seen a time that he has taken the lectern without insulting the Republicans or challenge them to defy him. That isn't leadership. The first two years he had a majority in both houses.

    For 66 days he had a super majority and the Republicans couldn't filibuster. Funny things is that Democrats screwed themselves out of the super majority. The Democrats were afraid that Ted Kennedy might drop dead while there was a Republican governor so they changed the rules to require a special election rather than the governor appointing a successor. Then Ted has the lack of courtesy to wait for them to change the rules back before dropping dead. Wouldn't you know it, a Republican won the special election and the Democrat governor couldn't appoint a successor.

    Imagine what damage Obama could have done with a super majority for the entire first two years!
     
  17. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #17
    Two words: Joe Lieberman. Independent who could switch sides on a whim. Without him, there was no supermajority.

    BL.
     
  18. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #18
    You could make a case that we'd be better off if all 535 were independent.
     
  19. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #19
    Joe Lieberman was a Democrat until the party screwed him in the primary. However, he chose to caucus with the Democrats. Actually there were two Independents in that Senate. Both caucused with the Democrats. If a Senator is a member of a third party or has no part affiliation he/she has to send a letter to the leader of the party that he/she wishes to caucus with, thereby counting for the majority.

    You may not have liked Joe but he was one of yours.
     
  20. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #20
    You could blame that on the Party who voted him out. Good ole Neddy won the primary but lost the general.
     
  21. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #21
    For 66 days, out of 5 years in office, they had a supermajority. That's it. No one is going to change the world in 66 days. And thanks to the filibuster, if you don't have a supermajority, you might as well be in the minority.

    [​IMG]

    You don't think the Republicans bear some of the responsibility for this?
     
  22. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #22
    Again, this is where LEADERSHIP comes into it. Leaders learn to work with the other party and practice negotiation. The US Senate was never meant to be a body where the majority party could run roughshod over the minority. The Democrats told the Republicans that they could sit on their hands when they had their super majority. They rammed the ACA through without the Republicans but then Teddy dropped dead and a Republican won that seat.

    If only the Democrats had not changed the rules on filling a seat in the US Senate from Massachusetts. You know someone is slapping themselves on the forehead for that one.

    When you tell the minority party that they aren't going to have a say and demand that they acquiesce to your demands sometimes they defy you.
     
  23. PracticalMac thread starter macrumors 68030

    PracticalMac

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #23
    I took Oldhifi's comment as how the foundational mechanism of the Constitution works.

    But you (and Oldhifi) are saying its not the Constitution but the bureaucracy, rules, connections, and power games that need to be looked at (even Constitutional) to see how it all really works.

    ----------

    Used to be a time the minor party offered ideas the major party could work with and come up with good compromises.

    Offering an alternative to the ACA will lead to change, but all I hear from the minor power is repeal the entire law (although a few times they have offered to remove just the keystone part of the ACA, hoping the rest will collapse with it).
     
  24. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #24
    Do you even understand the basic structure of our government, their roles, and how it functions?

    Congress makes the laws, and we have a Democrat-controlled senate and a gerry-mandered Republican controlled house. That pretty much means neither party is in charge, and they'd have to work together to get **** done. The Republicans refuse to do so, so that's how they end up "in control".. by doing nothing and blocking any attempt to pass new legislation and fix our problems.

    The President, meanwhile, is in charge of the executive branch, which is in charge of putting in to place the legislation Congress passes. So technically, yeah, if Congress passes a budget that reduces the deficit, Obama and the executive branch officials who oversee implementing that reduced budget can take some credit for it.
     
  25. G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #25
    Why do you hate freedom? Why should big box retailers that destroy American labor, pay off local goverment, and rob the tax payer of billions in benefits for their workers have to pay a " living wage ", freaking communist! :eek:

    oh

    :p

    ----------

    Of course! You clearly do not understand jebus big mac freedom iraq terroism do you?

    The right thing to do is to take away lunch from school children, remove benefits and fair pay for teachers, pull funding for police, hospitals, fire fighters, bridges, locks, disaster response, schools, college, food off the table of the working class, and cut taxes for REAL Americans.

    Who are REAL Americans? Defense companies, bankers, the super rich, they are struggling, and need help! Why should half the country have FOOD to eat when the super rich can increase their bottom line slightly?

    /republican model of goverment
     

Share This Page