Citing a lengthy list of "wildly inappropriate" provisions that have been attached to pending U.S. budget proposals, a coalition of 178 groups representing tens of millions of Americans is calling on President Barack Obama and Congress to oppose any federal appropriations bills that include "ideological" policy riders.
Are clowns at the circus, serious? This Congress has become/been a laughing matter for a long time. The article should be accompanied by the sounds of an ATM hard at work, in a casino, somewhere close to a brothel in Macau or Las Vegas
The "I just want my country back" meme is steaming and putrid in the garbage can. What do they want, Dred Scott? Pre-suffrage?
Pathetic, you might think that the budget before a national election would be a clean one but it appears that the grifters are so confident that they will put out their hands for returns on their investments before the election even begins. Perhaps what we are seeing is only good faith assurances that their "campaign donations" are money well spent and the real pay backs come later.
It's not possible to get ideology out of the budget. Bill Clinton embraced his ideology when he wrote the poor out of the budget, ending poverty relief. This year alone, Dems in Congress embraced their ideology by virtually ending food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled. Liberals have been fine with this.
Well, we can ask the same thing of the middle class. They want socialism, but only for the middle class, and they demand that not a crumb trickle down. As for our Congress -- this is what this generation votes for.
The article doesn't mention it but it sounds as if ALEC is dabbling with the federal budget exactly like they are doing in the states.
Please indicate where the liberals were the ones to end food stamps. I would appreciate your iinput.
Your statement seems to be nonsensical on the surface. Can you be more specific?
ncycat, What is nonsensical about it?
People need to read more carefully. I wrote that with the latest budget, Democrats agreed to virtually (this means "almost") end food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled. On average, food stamps were cut (for these people) from $115 per month, down to $15 (give or take a couple of dollars, depending on state, etc.) Note that it was Democrat Bill Clinton who ended actual welfare and took the first steps to similarly "reform" Social Security, targeting the disabled. If you were too young in the 1990s to know about this, just Google it.
Note that TANF is a short-term, marginally subsidized work program, only for those with minor children. That's it.That is all that remains of of former welfare programs. In the real world, not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren't jobs for all. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 people who need one right now. While that's an improvement, what do you think happens to those who are left out? Masses of low wage workers are a single job loss from losing everything, with no way back up. You can't get a job once you no longer have a home address, phone, bus fare. You're just out.
As for liberals: When was the last time you heard a liberal call for restoring poverty relief for the jobless poor, and many of the unemployable? America has a poverty crisis, but liberals don't even recognize the existence of those who are worse of than min. wage workers.
Nothing to fear since their names are not revealed.