Instead of discussing the horror of someone buying soda pop or a steak with SNAP (food stamps), it would be great to turn the conversation to the things that can't be purchased and think for a minute how we could find a workaround.
These disproportionate cuts -- which likely account for at least $3.3 trillion of the budget's $4.8 trillion in non-defense cuts over the next decade -- contrast sharply with the budget's rhetoric about helping the poor and promoting opportunity.
You don't know me. You have no clue that my family has gone through the wringer. You have no clue that we have faced unbelievable hardship. You know none of this but you didn't let that stop you from being compassionate and generous to someone you have never met.
Budgets are about priorities. Despite Chairman Ryan's rhetoric on fighting poverty and boosting opportunity, no fair-minded observer can claim that his proposals actually reflect those priorities -- or sugarcoat their harsh impact on tens of millions of low- and moderate-income Americans.
Millennials have had enough of the decisions made by baby boomers that have left them scrambling to find jobs that match their hard-earned credentials -- and they've had enough of self-serving politicians.
Basic budget arithmetic suggests that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's coming budget will be at least as extreme as his budget last year, and likely more so.
The Ryan report grimly concludes that federal programs are "failing to address" poverty. Poverty certainly remains too high. But the report seems determined not to recognize the long-term successes of existing programs even when the evidence is in plain sight.
A single number can change the public debate on an issue that seems stalled. The number is $4.6 billion, and it represents how much money taxpayers will save annually if the federal minimum wage is raised to $10.10 per hour.
Even with the crucial anti-poverty programs we have in place, these are new and emerging faces of poverty -- the very opposite of the picture of poverty Ryan paints.
Knowing that many active-duty service personnel and veterans face financial hardships, there is much we can -- and should -- do to ease that burden.
Since there is currently a rather large amount of poverty around that ideally would be rapidly alleviated, you could legitimately expect that the proposals that each side brought to the table might significantly erode the poverty under review. Sadly, however, neither set of proposals do.
While news outlets don't just invent numbers on the budget, it would not be much of a change for the worse if they did. The news stories that we saw following the release of President Obama's budget followed the same practice we have seen in budget stories for decades. They threw very large numbers at readers that no one understands.
A million fewer people received SNAP last December than in December 2012 -- the fourth straight month in which participation fell from the previous year. This is just the latest sign that SNAP, which critics claim is out of control, has begun to shrink as the economy slowly recovers from the Great Recession.
I am a little suspicious about the timing of all of these moves and wonder if it works and he is reelected, will he continue to follow the will of the voters or go back to his conservative ways?
The result of the Republican budget would be opportunity only for those who already have money. So, of course, the GOP had to try to kill a budget conceived under the proposition of opportunity for everyone.
Even when her friends use the expression, Kelly reminds them "No, you are not starving." There are people in the world who really face starvation, struggling to find food every hour of every day. "Hunger is everywhere" as she puts it. This cruel condition is one no one should go through.