Going on strike? Well, nobody in your family may have food stamps, then

Thanks, GOP.

(Page 15, actual text:

Not withstanding any other provision of law, no member of a family unit shall participate in the food stamp program at any time that any able-bodied work eligible adult member of such household is on strike as defined in the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C. 142(2)), because of a labor dispute (other than a lockout) as defined in section 2(9) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. VerDate Mar 15 2010 23:48 Mar 17, 2011 Jkt 099200 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1135.IH H1135 smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
•HR 1135 IH

152(9)): Provided, That a family unit shall not lose its eligibility to participate in the food stamp program as a result of one of its members going on strike 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: Provided further, That such ineligibility shall not apply to any family unit that does not contain a member on strike, if any of its members refuses to accept employment at a plant or site because of a strike or lockout.''.)

So, basically, if you or anyone in your family goes on strike, and your family does not currently benefit from foodstamps, nobody in your family is eligible for foodstamps (or an increase in foodstamps if you already benefit from them). Because of one person going on strike.

This totally has nothing whatsoever to do with the recent national protests occurring in response to Wisconsin's anti-union law. Ignore the fact that all the reps introducing it are Republicans (Jim Jordan (OH), Tim Scott (SC), Scott Garrett (NJ), Dan Burton (IN), and Louie Gohmert (TX)). Ignore the fact that over forty million Americans are on food stamps right now.

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

I am really starting to dislike these people..this is pretty much blackmail.

I am really starting to dislike these people..this is pretty much blackmail.

Kcube

But they're the Party for the People.

Theokhoth

yeeeeaaaahhhh the high ups in the GOP are kinda drunk with power right now.

It's interesting because sometime before the election I saw one of them (don't remember the guy's name) on the Daily Show saying how the republicans lost their job and that they "get it". Kinda makes you wonder what it was they were getting.

As it's turning out it seems that all they got was angry and they are out for revenge. Not just on Obama, but all the people who voted democrat.

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

GabuEx

that is essentially blackmail weezyfb

Technically speaking it's extortion, not blackmail. :P

not that it really matters, but is this at a federal or state level?

not that it really matters, but is this at a federal or state level?

Serraph105

Federal.

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

Theokhoth

I've got nothing.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

Theokhoth

I have a feeling that the argument would be something like this:

"No one has a right to food stamps; Congress is well within its rights to determine how and under what circumstances food stamps may be allotted."

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

GabuEx

I have a feeling that the argument would be something like this:

"No one has a right to food stamps; Congress is well within its rights to determine how and under what circumstances food stamps may be allotted."

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

not that it really matters, but is this at a federal or state level?

GabuEx

Federal.

man... they REALLY do hate poor people... ( because they typically vote democrat )

I guess it could kind of make sense if there were some epidemic of union workers going on strike indefinitely and living on food stamps as a bargaining tactic, but something tells me that's not the case.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

not that it really matters, but is this at a federal or state level?

Serraph105

Federal.

Yeah, the Republicans have pretty much declared an all-out war on unions, it seems.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

I'm struggling to find an interpretation of or motivation for this bill that doesn't ultimately center around wanting to hold the families of union members hostage at gunpoint in an effort to force the union member not to exercise his or her rights, but I'm coming up empty.

GabuEx

I have a feeling that the argument would be something like this:

"No one has a right to food stamps; Congress is well within its rights to determine how and under what circumstances food stamps may be allotted."

Yeah, but that just has to do with the legality. That argument doesn't even attempt to develop a justification for enacting those restrictions.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"] Perhaps one of the conservative regulars of OT can come in and enlighten us as to the true meaning of the bill.coolbeans90

I have a feeling that the argument would be something like this:

"No one has a right to food stamps; Congress is well within its rights to determine how and under what circumstances food stamps may be allotted."

Yeah, but that just has to do with the legality. That argument doesn't even attempt to develop a justification for enacting those restrictions.

"When the facts on on your side, hammer the facts. When the law is in your side, hammer the law. When neither are on your side, hammer the table."

(Legal aphorism)

So its safe to say that we should get rid of the Republican party now right? They care nothing about the people only about the top 1%. MgamerBD

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]So its safe to say that we should get rid of the Republican party now right? They care nothing about the people only about the top 1%. Theokhoth

The disgruntled battle cry of many on both sides of the political aisle.

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"]So its safe to say that we should get rid of the Republican party now right? They care nothing about the people only about the top 1%. Theokhoth

This is ridiculous. I dont even know what to say, cant the government even pretend to care about its people anymore.

Presedential veto. There you go.

Wow...............And yet I feel you guys walked rigth into it. I mean they've been saying this for years, and nobody seemed to listen.

Presedential veto. There you go.

789shadow

Yeah, there's no way this will become law, but that doesn't change the fact that they want it to.

Presedential veto. There you go.

789shadow

Oh, and on the state level, guess who's going after voting rights? Apparently this is happening in 22 states. All Repub-backed, of course, and guess who's most effected? Seniors, students, low-income voters, ethnic minorities and the disabled.Theokhoth

I understand Republicans wanting to keep away everyone of those but seniors away from the polls. I mean, seniors WILL VOTE REPUBLICAN. ALL THE TIME.

Anyway, unfortunately, states can do that.

Oh, and on the state level, guess who's going after voting rights? Apparently this is happening in 22 states. All Repub-backed, of course, and guess who's most effected? Seniors, students, low-income voters, ethnic minorities and the disabled.Theokhoth

"Gov. Kasich, your approval ratings are horrible."

"We must do something about this!"

"Agreed. Perhaps we could pursue more popular legislation?"

"Heavens, no! Let's just disenfranchise the people who would've voted against me."

If Republicans are scared of a socialist revolution, I find it odd that they are doing just the thing that would cause one.

The whole government is corrupt.

The whole government is corrupt.

J-man45

pretty much this and only this. i think there are probably a couple politicians that are interested in thecitizens but they are outweighed by the 99.999999999% of horrible horrible human beings we have running the country.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]that is essentially blackmail GabuEx

Technically speaking it's extortion, not blackmail. :P

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

Theokhoth

This made me LMAO. Perhaps if people got off their lazy asses and earned their own way in the world, they wouldn't be receiving "benefits" to be cut off from.

The price of freedom is independence. When you allow yourself to be dependent on others, then others control you and you are not free.

Let them eat grass.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

collegeboy64

This made me LMAO. Perhaps if people got off their lazy asses and earned their own way in the world, they wouldn't be receiving "benefits" to be cut off from.

The price of freedom is independence. When you allow yourself to be dependent on others, then others control you and you are not free.

Let them eat grass.

Ah, here we are, my prediction was bang on the money.

If this passes into law I think I will be joining a lot of people in taking to the streets in protestAcemaster27

Well then!

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

GabuEx

This made me LMAO. Perhaps if people got off their lazy asses and earned their own way in the world, they wouldn't be receiving "benefits" to be cut off from.

The price of freedom is independence. When you allow yourself to be dependent on others, then others control you and you are not free.

Let them eat grass.

Ah, here we are, my prediction was bang on the money.

[QUOTE="Acemaster27"]If this passes into law I think I will be joining a lot of people in taking to the streets in protestSerraph105

Well then!

Well that's just outstanding.

[QUOTE="weezyfb"]that is essentially blackmail GabuEx

Technically speaking it's extortion, not blackmail. :P

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

Remember, if you oppose the Republicans, they'll cut your benefits. If you don't, they'll do it anyway. But they're the Party for the People.

GabuEx

This made me LMAO. Perhaps if people got off their lazy asses and earned their own way in the world, they wouldn't be receiving "benefits" to be cut off from.

The price of freedom is independence. When you allow yourself to be dependent on others, then others control you and you are not free.

Let them eat grass.

Ah, here we are, my prediction was bang on the money.

This is one case where I'll actually side with the GOP. If you want to eat, work for your food. People have been doing it for centuries.