• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World

Status
Not open for further replies.
By 2016, the electorate will dip below 70% white. That whole "the GOP is fucked!!1!" thing we've been talking about for years is finally happening, right before our eyes.
I'd argue this already happened in 2012. Kerry's performance in 2004 would have sent him to the White House if the electorate looked like it did eight years later, even with Bush doing relatively well with Hispanics. That was at the height of culture war, threat level orange bullshit too.

The only reason Republicans can still do well in midterm elections is because Democrats are relying more and more on the emerging electorate to win elections in presidential years, who don't turn out as often as older, wealthier conservative voters who can spend more time keeping up with politics.

And even then we might see Democrats' turnout operation save the Senate. I know I get clowned on here for being optimistic, but there are overwhelmingly positive reports coming from Iowa, North Carolina, Georgia, Alaska, South Dakota etc. on voter registration and early voting that suggest Democrats could beat the polls there (though Hagan is of course leading in NC according to everyone, perhaps she'll do even better).

I'm not saying like, "Yeah Democrats are gonna pick up seats in the Senate and win the House back!" I'd say breaking even in the Senate is the most realistically positive outcome we could hope for. But when you see pollsters and pundits making the same stupid mistakes in states like Colorado as they did in 2010 and 2012 while the Democrats are working hard (and apparently extremely effective) at making the electorate look like it did two years ago I don't think it's unreasonable to think they might exceed expectations.

It's not that they need to turn out every single Obama voter from 2012, they just need to achieve parity. I think of the Florida voters in 2012 who stayed and voted well past midnight, when there was no question who was going to win the presidential election which had been called hours beforehand. There are some Democratic base voters who don't care about voting in the midterms, but the same applies for some Republican base voters. We just need to make sure that proportionally these numbers stay about the same.

Yeah the GOP will probably hold down McConnell's seat and might pick off Arkansas and Louisiana. Who gives a fuck?

neurosisxeno said:
More than likely Warren will be on par for Sanders. If either or both run it will be explicitly to galvanize the middle class with talk of issues they actually care about, and drag Hillary back to the left a bit. Lets be frank, Hillary is basically a Moderate Democrat at this point, with Warren being an actual Liberal and Sanders being a Social Democrat\Progressive. If they can shift the focus of debates towards things like social programs, infrastructure investments, tackling income inequality, and focusing on America, they will have been successful.

I wish Elizabeth Warren stood a chance against Hillary, but she doesn't. She is however the Democrats ace-in-the-hole, in that she is phenomenal at fund raising, and cares about the issues facing a lot of people. She has an army of young voters behind her with her crusade against student loan debt, and appeals to the middle class by focusing on tackling Wall Street and the super wealthy. She manages to do all this with grace and enough charisma to avoid a Howard Dean 2000 moment.

The debates should be exciting for Democrats if either Sanders or Warren get up there and have some actual air time. Compare that to what is likely to be the most embarassingly bad debates in recent memory from the GOP, and 2016 looks really favorable to Democrats.
I'll have no problem voting for Clinton when the time comes but the more voices the better. My liberal fantasy is seeing a Clinton/Warren ticket winning the White House and Pelosi elected Speaker again. Next State of the Union has three women.
 
Am I the only person kind of sad that Joe Biden has no chance to be President because he has too many "gaffes"? I mean, I'm not saying Joe doesn't have his faults, but the guy is a solid liberal voice and even though I'll happily support Hillary, it's a little disappointing he'll likely be ran over in the 2016 primary, especially considering he's to Hillary's left on most things.

Ah screw it, let's just make him permanent VP.
 
I'll have no problem voting for Clinton when the time comes but the more voices the better. My liberal fantasy is seeing a Clinton/Warren ticket winning the White House and Pelosi elected Speaker again. Next State of the Union has three women.

Clinton\Warren would be a mistake, it would only really appeal to core liberals which aren't vast enough to guarantee a win. She will probably pick someone out of the senate with a few years under their belt, and I assume a male because running a Presidential ticket with 2 women is pretty ballsy. Kristen Gillibrand also wouldn't be a bad choice if they chose a two women ticket. Outside of the Senate I can't really think of any strategic picks to make. Are their any popular southern democrat Govs that happen to be white men under 65 lol?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Am I the only person kind of sad that Joe Biden has no chance to be President because he has too many "gaffes"? I mean, I'm not saying Joe doesn't have his faults, but the guy is a solid liberal voice and even though I'll happily support Hillary, it's a little disappointing he'll likely be ran over in the 2016 primary, especially considering he's to Hillary's left on most things.

Ah screw it, let's just make him permanent VP.

He needs to be VP for life, it's like he was born for the job.

Clinton\Warren would be a mistake, it would only really appeal to core liberals which aren't vast enough to guarantee a win. She will probably pick someone out of the senate with a few years under their belt, and I assume a male because running a Presidential ticket with 2 women is pretty ballsy. Kristen Gillibrand also wouldn't be a bad choice if they chose a two women ticket. Outside of the Senate I can't really think of any strategic picks to make. Are their any popular southern democrat Govs that happen to be white men under 65 lol?

Gillibrand would be a good choice, she's done a great job as Senator. Far better than anyone figured she would. Honestly I wouldn't mind seeing her run, a couple cycles down the line of course.
 
Clinton\Warren would be a mistake, it would only really appeal to core liberals which aren't vast enough to guarantee a win. She will probably pick someone out of the senate with a few years under their belt, and I assume a male because running a Presidential ticket with 2 women is pretty ballsy. Kristen Gillibrand also wouldn't be a bad choice if they chose a two women ticket. Outside of the Senate I can't really think of any strategic picks to make. Are their any popular southern democrat Govs that happen to be white men under 65 lol?
Clinton is a pure establishment candidate, I think she can afford picking a more liberal VP though she probably won't.

I'm expecting Mark Warner myself.
 

pigeon

Banned
Assuming both parties keep their safe states, they'd have to win:

Indiana
Missouri
North Carolina
Florida
Ohio
Virginia
Iowa

to get 272. They could also conceivably get it with wins in New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado. But...

To put this in perspective, if in 2012, Obama did 2% worse in every state uniformly, he'd lose Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and just barely lose Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

So it's not impossible by any means. But it's also not likely to just happen, and a lot of states have gotten bluer since 2012.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Romney would have needed a 5.4% uniform move to reach 270 in 2012. Romney would have needed a uniform move to a 1.5% lead on the overall popular vote to win.

Paul Ryan or Rand Paul might pull Colorado and Iowa deeper red, and Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee might pull Florida and North Carolina deeper red, but that also means that Bush might pull Colorado and Iowa further blue, as with Rand in North Carolina or Florida.

When you have to make sure you clean sweep NC, FL, OH, VA, and CO with limited alternative paths to victory, you're just not got to be able to find a candidate that can specifically make an easier path to victory beyond just brute forcing it with nationwide likability, which probably isn't the Republican's strong suit right now, seeing as they've only done it once in the last 6 presidential elections.

Maybe if they somehow crack that Pennsylvania code for that juicy 20 points, the whole math would change, but you know how that's working out for republicans so far.
 

Retro

Member
The only way the GOP can make Pennsylvania a reliable win is to nuke Philadelphia off the map. As long as Southeast PA exists, it will always be an uphill battle for them no matter how absurdly red they make "Pennsyltucky."
 

Wilsongt

Member
I always vote in every election and will continue to do so. However, I'm another one who believes that democratic fraud is rampant. Dead people voting, illegal aliens voting, one person voting multiple times, voting machines "fixed", etc. And as someone already said, Obola will use executive orders and ignore the constitution and the law to do exactly as he pleases. I'm so sick of him, his wife, his minions and anything that has to do with him.
It seems that all the republicans are scared to death to oppose him for fear of being called racist. Oh, and that's another thing I'm sick of... the race card.
Thanks for letting me rant

Christian fundies taking Obola and running with it.
 
I'm not sure we can bank on anything two years out. I seem to remember a host of ridiculous views on what Obama would accomplish in his second term, and dismissal of the "second term scandals/distractions" issue that plagues all modern presidents. At this pace Obama could easily be a Bush-esque anchor on the party by 2016 - we don't know what impact that will have on the election, who ultimately gets the nominations, etc.

Hillary didn't look or sound impressive during her book tour, Jeb Bush seems like he's too intellectually foreign to win in an extreme conservative party, Christie strikes me as a very reckless individual with skeletons in his closet, etc. In short there's no telling what's going to happen over the next couple years, or who will best be poised to win.

Demographics are a long term problem for republicans, the question IMO is whether they have a short term window to win in before those demographics screw them over. I used to think 2012 was that last shot, the last window. But given how unpopular Obama is, the economy, and what seems like a never ending wheel of foreign problems it seems like the window is increasing.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Romney would have needed a 5.4% uniform move to reach 270 in 2012. Romney would have needed a uniform move to a 1.5% lead on the overall popular vote to win.

Paul Ryan or Rand Paul might pull Colorado and Iowa deeper red, and Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee might pull Florida and North Carolina deeper red, but that also means that Bush might pull Colorado and Iowa further blue, as with Rand in North Carolina or Florida.

When you have to make sure you clean sweep NC, FL, OH, VA, and CO with limited alternative paths to victory, you're just not got to be able to find a candidate that can specifically make an easier path to victory beyond just brute forcing it with nationwide likability, which probably isn't the Republican's strong suit right now, seeing as they've only done it once in the last 6 presidential elections.

Maybe if they somehow crack that Pennsylvania code for that juicy 20 points, the whole math would change, but you know how that's working out for republicans so far.


Every 4 years they make a late play in PA but fail. WI hasn't been close in 12 years by 2016. MI is gone. GA is purple by 2016. GA is the 2nd state aside from reliably red TX that gives the GOP the most electoral votes. They don't have any blue states turning purple anytime soon let alone red. TX and AZ will be the final nail in the R's coffin when that happens. CA, NY are gone & FL is purple. Give the D's TX and game over.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I'm incredibly bullish on the Dems' electoral prospects, no doubt, but remain skeptical about Texas. Texas going blue seems like fusion energy to me - I badly want it to happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

My main skepticism comes from what I saw while living and working in Texas. Hispanic voters there divide their votes more evenly between the parties than Hispanic voters elsewhere, to the point where I'm guessing that voting GOP is a bit more than politics, and has a cultural gravity to it.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Reading that CNN front page article on Ted Cruz.

Is he really that crazy? What in the world would abolishing the IRS do? Would they seriously try to replace it with a flat tax that would screw over more poor and middle class?
 

NeoXChaos

Member
I'm incredibly bullish on the Dems' electoral prospects, no doubt, but remain skeptical about Texas. Texas going blue seems like fusion energy to me - I badly want it to happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

My main skepticism comes from what I saw while living and working in Texas. Hispanic voters there divide their votes more evenly between the parties than Hispanic voters elsewhere, to the point where I'm guessing that voting GOP is a bit more than politics, and has a cultural gravity to it.

Oh no I agree. TX aint turning blue for atleast another 2-3 cycles. 2024, 2028, or 2032? probably
 
Every 4 years they make a late play in PA but fail. WI hasn't been close in 12 years by 2016. MI is gone. GA is purple by 2016. GA is the 2nd state aside from reliably red TX that gives the GOP the most electoral votes. They don't have any blue states turning purple anytime soon let alone red. TX and AZ will be the final nail in the R's coffin when that happens. CA, NY are gone & FL is purple. Give the D's TX and game over.

Michigan could be a red state soon given demographic changes (Detroit gentrification), the deep red makeup of the legislature, and the looming spectre of more voter ID laws. The only reason democrats win here state-wide is due Wayne County (Detroit) having so many (black) voters. The city's population continues to decrease so..
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Michigan could be a red state soon given demographic changes (Detroit gentrification), the deep red makeup of the legislature, and the looming spectre of more voter ID laws. The only reason democrats win here state-wide is due Wayne County (Detroit) having so many (black) voters. The city's population continues to decrease so..

THIS. People need to stop assuming MI is a permanent blue state. If Detroit's population keeps dwindling, in a decade it could easily turn red.
 

Wilsongt

Member
Reading that CNN front page article on Ted Cruz.

Is he really that crazy? What in the world would abolishing the IRS do? Would they seriously try to replace it with a flat tax that would screw over more poor and middle class?

Yes. He is crazy. He is the equivalent of an internet troll at this point.
 
Wait, the black population is decreasing in detroit? I mean where are they going to? I thought it was the white population which has been in decline since forever. There is also huge growing Arab population in dearborn thats also blue.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Wait, the black population is decreasing in detroit? I mean where are they going to? I thought it was the white population which has been in decline since forever. There is also huge growing Arab population in dearborn thats also blue.

Romney didn't even compete in MI. Gary Peters is cruising to the Senate. Snyder is in trouble. Obama won MI by 17 & 10. MI may not be permanently off the map in mid-term, congressional and statewide elections but Presidential? Yes for "now".

That goes along for PA & MN.

The R's Floor in these states are 45-47%. They haven't cracked past that since 1988 & 1992.
 
PA and MI might become tossup states in the future, but for right now they have pretty solid Democratic leans.

Kansas poll from Monmouth has Orman tied and Davis leading by 5. I feel like if one of them wins they'll bring the other one with, so that's good. Interestingly that's almost the opposite of PPP's last poll which had Orman up 3 and Davis tied. A little concerned about Roberts outspending Orman but MaydayPAC is spending nearly a million on him now.

PPP also has a new NC poll coming out today, they said it's steady. They had Hagan up 4 last time.
 
Wait, the black population is decreasing in detroit? I mean where are they going to? I thought it was the white population which has been in decline since forever. There is also huge growing Arab population in dearborn thats also blue.

Lots of black people from Michigan are moving down south, or moving moving to other cities in Michigan. The property has been driven down so far that the gentrification process is in full effect, and who knows how they'll vote (I'd expect a rise of "we saved Detroit, don't let them take it back" shit). There are a couple big neighborhood development projects in the works as well. Ultimately the state's financial future seems pretty bleak to me, could continue to benefit republicans.

The state went bright red in 2010 and it won't change anytime soon. There is still Washtenaw County which is a liberal/college but overall this isn't really a traditionally blue state.

I agree Hillary should win it in 2016 though.
 

thcsquad

Member
Clinton\Warren would be a mistake, it would only really appeal to core liberals which aren't vast enough to guarantee a win. She will probably pick someone out of the senate with a few years under their belt, and I assume a male because running a Presidential ticket with 2 women is pretty ballsy. Kristen Gillibrand also wouldn't be a bad choice if they chose a two women ticket. Outside of the Senate I can't really think of any strategic picks to make. Are their any popular southern democrat Govs that happen to be white men under 65 lol?

Julian Castro is the best strategic pick to make. He's probably the only way Texas would get turned purple in 2016.
 

Crisco

Banned
I honestly think Obama's approval rating would creep back up to ~50% if the scandals and foreign catastrophes would stop. Obama is assigned various amounts of blame for things like ISIS, ebola, and the secret service which are entirely out of his control. Take that away and we have mostly good economic news, positive Obamacare results, and an increasingly progressive social climate in the USA. He's being drug down by yellow journalism, but that can only keep for so long.
 

tanod

when is my burrito
Want to jump in on the Hillary Clinton discussion:

Republicans are in a no-win situation if she wins the Dem nomination. They really played up the Obama vs. Clinton rift after the 2008 Democratic primary and so she has maximum flexibility in how she positions herself in 2016.

Back to 2014:
Going by 538.com, I'm assuming there will be a small Senate win for the Republicans at this point.

Unless there's a significant governing change by the Republican legislatures in the next two years, Republicans are only going to hurt their national standings more and that will help Dems in 2016. Worst case for Obama and Republicans, nothing will get done at all, status quo. Best case for Obama and Republicans, Obama gets a significant say in something like tax reform, the legislature starts passing things again (even if they are Republican priorities) and Obama gets to take credit for bringing bipartisanship back to Washington and Republicans don't have the power to override a veto.
 
Clinton\Warren would be a mistake, it would only really appeal to core liberals which aren't vast enough to guarantee a win. She will probably pick someone out of the senate with a few years under their belt, and I assume a male because running a Presidential ticket with 2 women is pretty ballsy. Kristen Gillibrand also wouldn't be a bad choice if they chose a two women ticket. Outside of the Senate I can't really think of any strategic picks to make. Are their any popular southern democrat Govs that happen to be white men under 65 lol?

I'd bet money on Mark Warner, and Tom Perriello will end up in his senate seat. He has to have been promised something for not running (and crushing) Terry McAuliffe in an ugly Obama v Clinton surrogate matchup.
 
I honestly think Obama's approval rating would creep back up to ~50% if the scandals and foreign catastrophes would stop. Obama is assigned various amounts of blame for things like ISIS, ebola, and the secret service which are entirely out of his control. Take that away and we have mostly good economic news, positive Obamacare results, and an increasingly progressive social climate in the USA. He's being drug down by yellow journalism, but that can only keep for so long.

I doubt it.

I pay zero attention to any of those "scandals"

And yet my approval of Obama is zero because he's a crap president that has done nothing past supporting Romneycare.

The good economic news has nothing to do with him.

The gay marriage wave has nothing to do with him.

Spending billions on drone wars while infrastructure continues to collapse in the US? Yeah, thats on him.

And hes absolutely dragging down the ticket wit him. Im going to vote for as few D's as possible.
 

HylianTom

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...17ca88-5860-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html

Obama lauds Supreme Court on gay marriage, has no plans to be a justice

Probably my favorite part of the article:
Toobin noted that Obama has now nominated about a third of the nation’s federal judges — including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — and nine of the nation’s 13 appeals circuits have a majority of judges chosen by Democratic presidents. When he took office, 10 of the circuits had a majority of Republican appointees.

Amazing.

And even more amazing if we finish the job in 2016. Complete domination of the federal judiciary.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
In other judicial news, Ruth Bader Ginsburg owns a surprising number of Notorious RBG shirts.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg owns a surprisingly large number of ‘Notorious RBG’ t-shirts

On Sunday night, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sat down with NPR reporter Nina Totenberg and former President of the Supreme Court of Israel Dorit Beinisch for a conversation about law, being a woman on the high court and Tumblr. The event was held at 92nd St Y in New York City.

During the conversation, Ginsburg revealed that yes, she does know that the Internet is talking about her, and yes, she does own "a large supply" of 'Notorious RBG' t-shirts. (Fast-forward the video to 1:08:30).
 

HylianTom

Banned
This makes me so happy.

I need to get me one of those shirts too.

I have one and get a good share of comments on it when I'm out and about (all positive.. which isn't a shocker since Obama won >80% here). Probably one of my favorite shirts.

I love that RBG is so popular.

Can Biden be VP again?

My absolute favorite cartoon of 2012's cycle came from his VP debate performance.

UncleJoe.jpg

He actually gave that "can you believe this bullshit?" grin to the camera after Ryan's answers and got away with it. The same media that crucified Gore for sighing called him the winner.. :D
 

ivysaur12

Banned
To put this in perspective, if in 2012, Obama did 2% worse in every state uniformly, he'd lose Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and just barely lose Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, and Iowa.

So it's not impossible by any means. But it's also not likely to just happen, and a lot of states have gotten bluer since 2012.

It would require a Republican sweep that we're not going to get with any of the candidates that have been thus far fielded for 2016. That also doesn't take into account that Georgia might emerge as a swing state, which fucks up the GOP's math even more if they have more of their previous "safe" states in play.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I have one and get a good share of comments on it when I'm out and about (all positive.. which isn't a shocker since Obama won >80% here). Probably one of my favorite shirts.

I love that RBG is so popular.



My absolute favorite cartoon of 2012's cycle came from his VP debate performance.



He actually gave that "can you believe this bullshit?" grin to the camera after Ryan's answers and got away with it. The same media that crucified Gore for sighing called him the winner.. :D

Biden got away with it because we expect nothing less from him. He's got next to no filter and because of that perception he can pretty much say or do what he wants, within reason.

Also, I love that cartoon too. It was my reaction to the debate.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Biden got away with it because we expect nothing less from him. He's got next to no filter and because of that perception he can pretty much say or do what he wants, within reason.

Also, I love that cartoon too. It was my reaction to the debate.
I'll always remember that debate because Biden gave the facial expressions of what I was feeling at the time when we were all hearing Ryan's typical B.S. He was putting-up arguments that couldn't be taken seriously, and finally.. finally someone treated these arguments with the contempt and ridicule that they deserved. It was incredibly refreshing, and I sometimes wonder if we'll ever see anything like it ever again.
 
My absolute favorite cartoon of 2012's cycle came from his VP debate performance.



He actually gave that "can you believe this bullshit?" grin to the camera after Ryan's answers and got away with it. The same media that crucified Gore for sighing called him the winner.. :D
Yes I remember that cartoon very clearly and it epitomized the feelings of democrats and the weight of the Universe on VP Biden's shoulders. I remember 99% of poligaf on that ledge and it was uncle joe who pulled us out. I think Diablos was already on the street below and PD was halfway down.
 
I really like Warren but she is not presidential material, and worse yet would be completely ineffective in this climate. What do people expect her to accomplish with a republican House? I'd rather have 10 more Elizabeth Warrens in the senate. IMO the goal should be ensuring a bunch of Clintonite moderate democrats don't ride Hillary's coattails in 2016. Which is why I want Warren in the senate, endorsing senate candidates in races around the country.

If 2009-2010 taught us anything it's that change comes from the bottom up, not from the president. If he doesn't have a base or legislators moving him left, he'll side with the status quo.

I'm still stunned the admin didn't realize how effective OFA could have been in building a new generation of grassroots candidates and organizers, who in turn could have helped fight for state based change. I don't want a federal minimum wage hike. Kick that to the states and you'll increase voting and activism. Same applies to the Medicaid expansion.
 
I'm still stunned the admin didn't realize how effective OFA could have been in building a new generation of grassroots candidates and organizers, who in turn could have helped fight for state based change. I don't want a federal minimum wage hike. Kick that to the states and you'll increase voting and activism. Same applies to the Medicaid expansion.
Hasn't that been done successfully in several blue states? I specifically recall in Maryland OFA played a big part in convincing state legislators to support the state's version of DREAM Act and gay marriage.
 

Wilsongt

Member
I would make a thread about this, but we know how government assistance threads go on GAF.

Indiana reinstates time limits for some food stamp recipients

WASHINGTON – Indiana will begin cutting off food stamp benefits next year to tens of thousands of people who fail to get a job or train for work.

Beginning in the spring, the state will limit benefits to no more than three months during a three-year period for able-bodied adults without children who don't work or participate in job training for at least 20 hours a week. The time limit is a requirement for the federally funded program, but states can ask for a waiver if jobs are scarce in all or part of the state.

Although Indiana is among the majority of states that qualify for a waiver, the state plans to reinstate the requirement.

"We view the re-establishment of the ... time-limited benefits in Indiana as an opportunity to help improve the skills of our fellow Hoosiers and advance their prospects for meaningful employment, while at the same time establishing a pool of better-prepared candidates for the Indiana workforce," Lance Rhodes, director of the division of family resources for the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration, wrote in a letter to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Advocates for the poor say it would be better for Indiana to first make sure it has sufficient programs to help the unemployed find jobs or new skills before reinstating the time limits.

"Let's figure out what the goals are for these able-bodied adults without dependents, and then let's build a program that meets those goals," said Jessica Fraser, program manager for the Indiana Institute for Working Families. "That seems to make a little more sense to me."

The work requirements were put in place when Congress revamped welfare programs in 1996. The law also included pots of money that states could tap to help recipients become self-sufficient.

In addition to a set amount of funding for education and training programs, states can get funding by putting up some of their own dollars, or by pledging to offer services — such as workfare — for those at risk of losing benefits. Congress this year added funding for a limited number of states that want to test employment and training services programs.

Ed Bolen, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said an indication of whether states are serious about helping people get jobs and skills is if they're applying for the matching funds or other extra resources.

"If a state is just saying, we want to encourage folks to work, but we're not putting anything into doing that, that to me indicates that what they really want to do is get people off their (food stamp) rolls," Bolen said.


Indiana does seek some matching funds, according to the FSSA. A spokeswoman said the office will consider applying for additional funds in the future.

The office estimates that about 65,000 of the approximately 877,000 Hoosiers receiving food stamps will be affected by the work requirements.

Average monthly food stamp participation rose every year in Indiana from 2009 through 2013, when it reached 926,011, or about 14 percent of the population, before falling this year. The average monthly benefit is about $131. To qualify, someone generally has to make less than 130 percent of the federal poverty level, about $15,170.

Indiana's unemployment rate has fallen from about 10 percent in 2009 to 5.8 percent, although it's higher in some parts of the state.

Advocates say they expect most parts of Indiana will not qualify for a waiver from the work requirement next year, but that doesn't mean the state should have rejected it this year.

"To us, it's an extra threat to someone's food security to impose a time limit when you don't have to because a waiver is available," Bolen said.

Of the states that qualified for a waiver, 28 are taking it for the full fiscal year that began this month. Fourteen states, including Indiana, are taking the waiver for only part of the year or for only part of the state. Indiana plans to reinstate the time limits around March, April or May.

Of Indiana's neighboring states, Michigan, Kentucky and Illinois are continuing to waive the requirement.

Ohio restarted the work requirement for most counties last year.

Of the 2,541 adults who lost benefits in Ohio's Franklin County, 1 in 3 had poor physical or mental health, said Lisa Hamler-Fugitt, executive director of the Ohio Association of Foodbanks. Other barriers to employment included not having a high school diploma or transportation, having a criminal background and needing to care for an elderly relative.

Most who lost their benefits relied instead on food pantries, churches and soup kitchens. Some turned to begging or searching in trash bins for food, the group said.

The time limits for those not working were imposed in Ohio as the temporary boost to food stamp benefits, put in place nationally during the recession, expired last year.

"It has been the perfect storm for emergency food providers: more people needing more food more frequently in a population that had no resources to feed themselves," Hamler-Fugitt said.

Despite Indiana's improved economy, only a few of the food banks and agencies that are part of the Feeding Indiana's Hungry network have seen a drop in need, said Executive Director Emily Weikert Bryant.


"We know that a large number of our clients are dealing with high blood pressure or diabetes and there are a number of complications that come with either of those that may make it difficult for someone to work in a job that may be available to them," she said.

State Rep. Gail Riecken, D-Evansville, said Indiana doesn't have either the quantity or quality of job training programs to help those whose benefits will be cut off.

"I think it's an easy out to say that people should go back to work after three months," she said. "It doesn't really get to the root of the problem."

So... Yeah. Indiana, ladies and gentleman.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
I'll always remember that debate because Biden gave the facial expressions of what I was feeling at the time when we were all hearing Ryan's typical B.S. He was putting-up arguments that couldn't be taken seriously, and finally.. finally someone treated these arguments with the contempt and ridicule that they deserved. It was incredibly refreshing, and I sometimes wonder if we'll ever see anything like it ever again.

I know, it was the greatest thing ever. Maybe one day we'll get a successor to Uncle Joe. Maybe one day...

I would make a thread about this, but we know how government assistance threads go on GAF.

Indiana reinstates time limits for some food stamp recipients



So... Yeah. Indiana, ladies and gentleman.

Wow, talk about a dick move.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
From Politico:

If the election for the [U.S. House of Representatives/U.S. Senate] were held today, would you vote for the [Democratic candidate] or the [Republican candidate] in [your district/your state]?

Democratic candidate (incudes KS-I): 41% (44% w/leaners)
Republican candidate: 36% (41% w/leaners)
Don't know: 23% (14% w/leaners)

Domed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom