$1 Trillion Farm Bill Another Victory For The 1 Percent

In the farm bill, Congress boosted the already-massive subsidies to agribusiness while screwing the poor. President Obama is expected to sign the bill into law on Friday.

Via DSWright on FDL:

The price tag for the Farm Bill comes in at nearly $1 trillion. Most of that money is designed to enrich the already rich. Remember that next time someone tells you the 1% hate “Big Government.” Because austerity and fiscal discipline speeches haven’t stopped wasteful programs– they have just given cover to cutting meager benefits for the poor.

Many so-called Democrats voted for an almost $9 billion cut to the SNAP (formerly Food Stamp) program, which takes away $90 a month from 850,000 of the nation’s poorest who seek help to buy groceries. This is in addition to the cuts already enacted late last year.

UPDATE: Food Stamp Cuts Signed Into Law

Republican legislators refused invitations to attend the signing ceremony because they wanted bigger safety net cuts.

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on February 5, 2014 - 6:42 pm

    It’s telling that dollar stores are going up everywhere and McDonalds now has a vast dollar menu. This wouldn’t be happening if people had any money.

  2. #2 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 10:04 am

    So it is your position that the government should not support farmers with the various crop insurance and other programs?

    I’d like to see Hillary run on that platform in Iowa.

    • #3 by Richard Warnick on February 6, 2014 - 11:53 am

      Congress didn’t need to take money away from hungry people and give it to millionaires in the form of insurance subsidies.

      Democrats everywhere are going to have a hard time running this November after cutting SNAP.

      • #4 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 1:44 pm

        Thank you for not answering my question.

      • #6 by brewski on February 6, 2014 - 8:14 pm

        So it is your position that the government should not support farmers with the various crop insurance and other programs?

        • #7 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 7:34 am

          I said my position. The crop insurance program should not be expanded at the expense of cutting SNAP and making Americans go hungry. For the 1 Percent, $90 a month may not seem like much – but it’s half of the monthly food budget for some people in need.

          BTW “farmers” in Washington-speak equals “millionaires and corporations” in plain English.

          • #8 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 11:18 am

            Money is fungible. There is no necessary connection between crop insurance and food assistance to the poor. So to say you are using one program is at the expense of another program is nonsensical. But you have never made sense about anything, so this is expected.

            Again, I look forward to Hillary or Cynthia McKinney or whomever going to Iowa and taking that position.

            Also, those people are not hungry. If they are so hungry then why do they have nicer cars than I have, and have extra cash to burn on beer and cigarettes. If they were so “hungry” they wouldn’t have this free cash.

            How more factually wrong can you be?

          • #9 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 12:26 pm

            Try to use logic for once. Legislation that simultaneously cuts subsidies for the poor and increases subsidies for the rich is reverse Robin Hood all the way.

            All poor people have plenty of food and nice cars? Oh that’s right. In the Faux News alternate reality, poor Americans are allegedly better off than the middle class. Because our tattered safety net makes such a comfortable hammock. :-(

          • #10 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 12:58 pm

            I couldn’t care less if they combined it into the same legislation. There is no necessary connection. Period.

            The ones I see at my local grocery store all seem to have nicer cars than mine, with tricked out custom rims, they also have nicer clothes, and extra cash for beer and cigarettes. Period.

            Not Fox News. My eyeballs. Fact, period, you lose.

          • #11 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 1:03 pm

            The fact is Congress simultaneously boosted subsidies for millionaires and corporations while cutting aid to the poor. That’s undeniable.

            How do you know the neighbors you see at your grocery store are using SNAP? Maybe they have a higher standard of living than you do. I thought you said wealthy people ought to be above criticism. ;-)

          • #12 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:24 pm

            They are unrelated. That’s undeniable.

            Because I stand in line behind them in the grocery store and watch them use them. They create two separate piles, the SNAP eligible pile and then they pay for that, and then their other pile of beer, cigarettes and other non-qualified purchases and pay for it with their bug roll of cash.

            Intellectual weakness of the left.

          • #13 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:28 pm

            What’s undeniable is that right-wing Republicans are only for deficit reduction when it means cutting the safety net for low-income Americans. If the question is subsidies for the 1 Percent, there are all for those no matter the cost!

            I go to the supermarket several times a week. I could not tell you who is on SNAP, because they use debit cards.

          • #14 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 2:30 pm

            I am all for getting rid of all subsidies. So don’t argue with me about that.

          • #15 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 2:52 pm

            I thought you liked government-subsidized crop insurance for so-called “farmers” (really agribusiness).

          • #16 by brewski on February 7, 2014 - 6:53 pm

            I have never once suggested such a thing.

            I am against all subsidies of all kind.

          • #17 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 9:15 pm

            You implied you supported the farm bill crop insurance provision. I’m glad you don’t, but you could express yourself more clearly.

          • #18 by brewski on February 8, 2014 - 8:12 am

            I never implied that. You imagined that.

            I am against all subsidies for anyone. How clear can that be.

  3. #19 by Richard Warnick on February 7, 2014 - 9:25 pm

    UPDATE: Food Stamp Cuts Signed Into Law

    Republican legislators refused invitations to attend the signing ceremony because they wanted bigger safety net cuts.

  4. #20 by cav on February 12, 2014 - 7:18 am

    David Atkins::
    “It is not an inaccurate or extreme statement to declare that ideological Republicans do not understand what it means to be human. They view human beings as economic units to be plugged at their lowest possible price into a maximally efficient market that provides the greatest possible returns on investment to the wealthy few, with any resulting human resentment and misery dulled by humility before a pleasure-fearing angry God promising rewards to the obedient in the hereafter. It is a dark, meager, shriveled and cramped vision of humanity. To accept their worldview is to reject the essence of human identity and purpose. If human beings could create a sustainable world of plenty free from violence, war, hunger or want, a world in which human beings were free to devote 24 hours a day to the leisurely pursuit of whatever activities they wished so long as they harmed no one else, conservatives would be terrified. It’s not so much that conservatives don’t believe such a world of boundless human potential is possible. It’s that they don’t want it to be possible.

    • #21 by brewski on February 12, 2014 - 8:53 am

      That would be pretty impressive if one word of it were true. I suppose I can make up a false diatribe and have people quote me and then I can be filled with my own sense of self-importance. He must feel pretty neato mosquito about himself right about now. Whoever the hell he is.

  5. #22 by cav on February 12, 2014 - 5:37 pm

    Please post it then, brewski. Then IT will be true.

  6. #23 by brewski on February 12, 2014 - 6:07 pm

    This is all you need to know about how Democrats think:

    Rep. Alvin Holmes, D-Montgomery, said on House floor that he doesn’t like Clarence Thomas because “he’s married to a white woman.”

  7. #33 by cav on February 13, 2014 - 7:53 am

    I lump everyone with feces because; circle of life.

  8. #34 by brewski on February 13, 2014 - 5:48 pm

    • #35 by Richard Warnick on February 13, 2014 - 8:47 pm

      Nothing new. Nineteen Bush Pioneers became ambassadors in 2001.

      I’m just happy that Max Baucus is going far away. Too bad we don’t need an ambassador on the Moon.

      • #36 by brewski on February 13, 2014 - 9:15 pm

        You said it. Obama is just like Bush. I agree.

      • #37 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2014 - 9:15 am

        Only insofar as both of them are politicians who made it to the Oval Office. But there can be only one Worst President Ever.

        What me worry?

        • #38 by brewski on February 14, 2014 - 10:19 am

          No, your point in your post was your comparison was the selling of ambassadorships.

          Obama is Bush on steroids.

          • #39 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2014 - 2:03 pm

            You brought this up. The post is actually about the Farm Bill.

          • #40 by brewski on February 14, 2014 - 5:44 pm

            Your comparison.

      • #41 by Larry Bergan on February 15, 2014 - 12:05 am

        That’s funny, Richard!

        On the moon or out in space. I can’t wait to see “Gravity” when it comes out this month.

  9. #42 by brewski on February 13, 2014 - 9:19 pm

    Obama far outpacing Bush.

    Obama is Bush on steroids:

    http://www.afsa.org/secondterm.aspx

    • #43 by Richard Warnick on February 14, 2014 - 9:23 am

      The problem is the 1 Percent are converting the plutonomy into a plutocracy. President Obama is part of the problem, but so was Bush.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: