The 113th Congress has stuck it to the poor at pretty much every opportunity. In fact, if you take all their past and future plans into account, it looks like they have accomplished that rare feat: To close in on enacting an overarching, radical agenda without control of the Senate or the presidency.How did they do it? Probably by escaping scrutiny through a piecemeal approach to legislation, a president who is willing to meet them halfway, and one diabolic word: Sequester.
this plan is another of those the republicans do and try to blame the Pres., piecemeal is republican for kicking that proverbial can down the road they are the one's who never want to negotiate, sticking improbable things in the pot only ruins the taste,
and they know it won't go like 46 attempts at ACA but they can put out the lie that Pres. won't cooperate he's kicking that can, but everything you hear that has to do with legislation always begins with "if the republicans don't...,or if the republicans do...., they are the proven obstructors.
they also are able to do it because of the fickle electorate, they act as if the real news on right wing skulduggery was never publicized and they didn't know it was them that have cause all the things they Blame Pres. for, and they sit on panels having voted for Pres. and blame him for the radical unprecedented and blocking by the republicans. looks like the right wing effort to keep'em dumb goes back farther then we thought.
Let's drill down into each piece:1. Kick 'em to the curb
Congress will basically start kicking poor people out of their homes early next year. The idea is, if you can't pay for your home without government assistance, you don't deserve to live in one.In this spirit, budget cuts due to sequestration will take rental assistance vouchers away from 140,000 low-income families by the beginning of next year, making housing more expensive as agencies raise costs to offset the budget cuts. All in all, about three million disabled seniors and families will be affected. The savings? $2 billion, which is pretty much what the government shutdown cost in back-pay to federal workers.
sounds very similar to Bachmanns, out of context rant
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/11/07/362845/michele-bachmann-if-anyone-will-not-work-neither-should-he-eat/
Bachmann also reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage and promised to push for a federal amendment defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”
isn't she in one herself?
