The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Eupher on June 18, 2013, 11:40:18 AM
-
(http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i317/Eupher6/BL-farm-bill-CBO-costs_zps24f47e3b.jpg)
Both Senate and House versions of the farm bill that Congress is looking to pass, preferably in short order and definitely before the current bill expires this September, are little better than deliberately gigantic messes full of an impressively convoluted combination of food stamps, corporate pork, tricky amendments, and completely unnecessary federal special treatment that agribusiness lobby claims agriculture for some reason deserves above all other economic sectors. The Hill has a useful rundown of some of the major battles that still need to be fought within Congress before they can agree upon a final bill, but one of the biggest is going to be over the majority of the spending in the bills that goes to food stamp programs. The Senate-passed version of the farm bill cut the food-stamp program by merely $400 million per year, with the support of the Obama administration, but the House is looking to go a little deeper (hi, trillion dollar yearly deficits, anyone?!) — and the Obama administration doesn’t like that at all.
The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.
The House is preparing to consider the bill this week. The legislation would cut $2 billion annually, or around 3 percent, from food stamps and make it harder for some people to qualify for the program. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, cost almost $80 billion last year, twice the amount it cost five years ago. …
The White House said in its statement Monday that food stamps are “a cornerstone of our nation’s food assistance safety net.†The administration argued that the House should make deeper cuts to farm subsidies like crop insurance instead.
Yes, it’s very easy to talk about the people who will be helped by continued growth in the food stamp program, except that the Obama administration has completely obliterated the normal standards and has grown the program by a whopping 70 percent since 2008 alone — even as the White House continues to insist that employment is improving everyday and our economy is continuing to recover. If that were really the case, why the expanded need for food stamps? You can’t have it both ways, you know.
Oh, and by the way — where is a lot of that corporate and special-interest pork in the farms bills coming from, you might very well wonder?
House members have filed more than 200 amendments to the bill, which is expected to come to the floor later this week.
Link #1 (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/18/white-house-threatens-to-veto-house-farm-bill-because-it-isnt-expensive-enough/)
Link #2 (http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/16/yes-the-new-and-improved-farm-bill-is-still-chock-full-of-corporate-pork/)
*Sigh.* Our Congresscritters still can't get it right. And they wonder why whale shit on the bottom of the ocean ranks higher than most of these twits.
And Barry. Shit, I'm having a good day. Don't get me started about Barry. :whatever:
-
The idea of making cuts in the budget to eliminate the deficit and reduce the debt didn't occur to the committees that put together this farm bill it seems.
-
The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.
Good. Maybe they will decide to do something about their situation instead of looking for a handout.
-
There are fewer areas of the budget that have more pork that the Farm bill. The majority of the senators and representatives bring home the bacon with big time Federal dollars for local spending. This is vote buying at its most basic and it includes both Democrats and Republicans. Send the bill to our grandkids again, they get to pay for foolish overspending of the politicians we send to Washington.
-
With Republicans like this...who needs Democrats?
-
Good. Maybe they will decide to do something about their situation instead of looking for a handout.
I agree. Let it expire and let the pavement apes and their worthless baby mamas starve. I bet it if there was no welfare you would see single motherhood percentages drop into single digits.
-
I agree. Let it expire and let the pavement apes and their worthless baby mamas starve. I bet it if there was no welfare you would see single motherhood percentages drop into single digits.
That's true. Now they get paid for each kid they pop out.
-
House defeats farm bill amid bipartisan opposition (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/20/house-to-vote-on-cuts-to-crop-insurance/)
Buh bye.
-
House defeats farm bill amid bipartisan opposition (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/20/house-to-vote-on-cuts-to-crop-insurance/)
Buh bye.
With any luck, buh-bey to John Boehner too.
103 amendments. What a bunch of shit.
-
With any luck, buh-bey to John Boehner too.
103 amendments. What a bunch of shit.
In comparison to whom he replaced...
edit grammar
-
I sent this to my Congresscritter, Vickie Hartzler-R, Missouri 4th district, who voted for this pile of shit:
Dear Rep. Hartzler -
I'm disappointed in your "aye" vote for the Farm Bill -- that stupendously expensive pile of pork that featured 103 amendments.
When the cost of this pile of pork is $930 billion; when food stamps comprise 80% of that total ($744 billion), what did you expect? Maybe there are some sane people in Congress after all.
Why does the so-called House "leadership" refer to this as a "farm bill?" when there's so little "farm" about this legislation to begin with?
I will admit that a great many of your constituents are farmers. I am not. But it's pure socialism when the federal government steps in and attempts to restructure a free market economy to prop up certain aspects of agriculture (in this case, dairy and, oh yes -- ethanol. And many other agricultural products.
Get government out of farming and food stamps and let a free market economy structure things. Meddling is meddling, especially when the feds get mixed up into things.
It's a good thing this bill was defeated. But I'm somewhat certain something almost as egregious is going to take its place -- like the Senate version, for example, which is even worse than yours.
-
...conservative Republicans, who wanted more cuts, and liberal Democrats, who wanted fewer, voted against the measure. The farm bill was defeated by a vote of 295 to 324.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0620/House-defeats-farm-bill-because-of-food-stamp-cuts
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2013/0620/House-defeats-farm-bill-because-of-food-stamp-cuts
I'm not sure what your point is, but I will say that when the so-called "farm bill" cloaks and hides flat-out entitlement programs like food stamps, the politicians are deliberately being disingenuous.
Put that kind of crap in a separate bill and call it what it is - food stamps.
And then let's see how much cutting can be done.
-
I think I would have a lot less problem with food stamps being in the farm bill if the food stamp program actually supported the small family farmer (as originally intended). Maybe if people on food stamps could only buy actual, honest-to-God produce we could support local farmers AND solve the obesity problem.
-
I think I would have a lot less problem with food stamps being in the farm bill if the food stamp program actually supported the small family farmer (as originally intended). Maybe if people on food stamps could only buy actual, honest-to-God produce we could support local farmers AND solve the obesity problem.
A good idea in the short run. But in the long run, the government using tax dollars to control people's habits will lead to nothing good.
-
A good idea in the short run. But in the long run, the government using tax dollars to control people's habits will lead to nothing good.
:werd: