SNAP Update (Update, Update II)

This post by David Atkins at Hullabaloo:

 The next time someone talks about how food stamps create a "culture of dependency", remind them almost half of the people on SNAP, otherwise known as the food stamp program, are children. And nearly half of those kids belong to parents who have jobs, but are in poverty anyway.

I think his summation hits it right on the nose:

Interestingly, most people demanding the starvation of children so that billionaires can buy more yachts call themselves Christian. Perhaps they're reading a Biblical translation that calls for blood sacrifice of innocents so that the rich may enjoy more fruits of Mammon. I missed that part in my copy.

Read the whole post -- lots of information you're not going to get from Fox -- or MSNBC, or CNN, or the Times, or WaPo. . . .

Digby draws an interesting parallel with one of the jerks who voted for this cut:

Cramer subsequently responded by citing a different passage from the Bible, one more favorable to his position on federally funded nutrition assistance.

"2 Thessalonians 3:10 English Standard Version (ESV) 10 For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat," he wrote.

This fine freedom lover would probably be surprised to learn about the company he keeps in quoting that line:

ARTICLE 12. In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

That's right. It's Article 12 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution, also known as the "Stalin Constitution."

And we wonder why the "Christian" leaders in this country all suddenly love Vladimir Putin.

See also this post.

Update: Jonathan Chait points out one egregious item regarding the food stamp cuts, which I had known about but forgot to mention: SNAP was separated from the farm subsidy bill, of which it has always been part, at the insistence of the Republican radicals in the House. And then what did they do?

Olsen also neglects to mention that House Republicans are not only locking in high agriculture subsidies, they are throwing more money at agriculture than Democrats want to spend. Obama has attacked the GOP farm-subsidy bill for spending too much. Here is the one chunk of social spending where Republicans are not only failing to issue hostage threats to secure the cuts they demand, they are also refusing to cut spending as much as Barack Obama asks. And the program they pick to defend is, on the substantive merits, the most unjustifiable program of any significant scale in the federal budget.

It is also one that accrues to disproportionately wealthy and overwhelmingly white recipients. (As opposed to Obamacare, whose beneficiaries are disproportionately poor and non-white.)

Keep in mind that most farms are owned by corporations, and many of the subsidies are intended to keep farmers from growing certain crops. And a significant number of Republicans in Congress, are -- "farmers."

Update II: I had thought the number was higher, but according to this article, there are only thirteen -- who have collectively received over $7 million in farm subsidies.