• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries

66gardeners

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,651
Reaction score
418
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
House Agriculture Committee Republicans who vocally supported billions in cuts to federal food assistance are big-time recipients of government help in the form of farm subsidies. Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) both cited the Bible last week to argue that while individual Christians have a responsibility to feed the poor, the federal government does not. "We're all here on this committee making decisions about other people's money," Fincher said. LaMalfa said that while it's nice for politicians to boast about how they've helped their constituents, "That's all someone else's money."

Yet both men's farms have received millions in federal assistance, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that advocates for more conservation and fewer subsidies. LaMalfa's family rice farm has received more than $5 million in commodity subsidies since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million in that time. Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574 and LaMalfa's got $188,570.
Spokespeople for the congressmen did not respond to requests for comment, but both LaMalfa and Fincher have defended their right to receive subsidies in the past when challenged by conservatives during primary elections. LaMalfa told a California paper that the subsidy system is needed to keep struggling farmers "on life support."

Fincher has said his farm would have shut down without the subsidies, which he argued protect American farmers from more heavily subsidized foreign competition. "We would be all for not having government in our business," Fincher told the Washington Post in 2010, "but we need a fair system." The federal government's complex system of farm subsidies is supposed to shield farmers from some of the uncertainties inherent to the industry, but critics like the Environmental Working Group say the safety net unfairly benefits the biggest farms at the expense of smaller ones.

"Fincher's $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee's median household income," Carr wrote in a blog on The Huffington Post. "After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years."

Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries


Welfare for Me - But Not for Thee!
 
66gardeners;1061843032 [U said:
[/U]Welfare for Me - But Not for Thee!

Well I am glad you finally learned the democratic motto.



This message not sent from an Obamaphone
 
Well I am glad you finally learned the democratic motto.



This message not sent from an Obamaphone

Didn't that program actually start under Reagan? :lamo
 
Didn't that program actually start under Reagan? :lamo

Did cellphones exist when Reagan was President? :2wave:
 
Did cellphones exist when Reagan was President? :2wave:

He led the charge to allow Alzheimer's to be the standard Republican performance mantra. You know, screw 'em all, just gimme mine. And the 1% was born.
 
He led the charge to allow Alzheimer's to be the standard Republican performance mantra. You know, screw 'em all, just gimme mine. And the 1% was born.

The 1% obsession is sour grapes for those who didn't get into PEA or a Final Club at Harvard.
 
Follow the money and it will always lead you to the answers. Nobody gives a **** about bibles, poverty, wealth, fairness, cruelty or 250 year old documents. It's all about the Benjamins - nothing else.
 
He led the charge to allow Alzheimer's to be the standard Republican performance mantra. You know, screw 'em all, just gimme mine. And the 1% was born.

The 1% has existed since the dawn of civilization. Stop saying stupid crap.
 
The 1% has existed since the dawn of civilization. Stop saying stupid crap.

Are you implying a long term conspiracy to empower the 1%? Continuous power in the familial hands? Who's hands?
 
House Agriculture Committee Republicans who vocally supported billions in cuts to federal food assistance are big-time recipients of government help in the form of farm subsidies. Reps. Stephen Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.) both cited the Bible last week to argue that while individual Christians have a responsibility to feed the poor, the federal government does not. "We're all here on this committee making decisions about other people's money," Fincher said. LaMalfa said that while it's nice for politicians to boast about how they've helped their constituents, "That's all someone else's money."

Yet both men's farms have received millions in federal assistance, according to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that advocates for more conservation and fewer subsidies. LaMalfa's family rice farm has received more than $5 million in commodity subsidies since 1995, according to the group's analysis of data from the U.S. Agriculture Department. Fincher's farm has received more than $3 million in that time. Last year alone, Fincher's farm received $70,574 and LaMalfa's got $188,570.
Spokespeople for the congressmen did not respond to requests for comment, but both LaMalfa and Fincher have defended their right to receive subsidies in the past when challenged by conservatives during primary elections. LaMalfa told a California paper that the subsidy system is needed to keep struggling farmers "on life support."

Fincher has said his farm would have shut down without the subsidies, which he argued protect American farmers from more heavily subsidized foreign competition. "We would be all for not having government in our business," Fincher told the Washington Post in 2010, "but we need a fair system." The federal government's complex system of farm subsidies is supposed to shield farmers from some of the uncertainties inherent to the industry, but critics like the Environmental Working Group say the safety net unfairly benefits the biggest farms at the expense of smaller ones.

"Fincher's $70,000 farm subsidy haul in 2012 dwarfs the average 2012 SNAP benefit in Tennessee of $1,586.40, and it is nearly double of Tennessee's median household income," Carr wrote in a blog on The Huffington Post. "After voting to cut SNAP by more than $20 billion, Fincher joined his colleagues to support a proposal to expand crop insurance subsidies by $9 billion over the next 10 years."

Food Stamp Cuts Backed By Farm Subsidy Beneficiaries


Welfare for Me - But Not for Thee!

Hmmmm?
A program that benefits everyone by keeping prices lower vs a program that only helps individuals?
I know which I choose. The one that keeps prices lower benefiting everyone.
 
Are you implying a long term conspiracy to empower the 1%? Continuous power in the familial hands? Who's hands?

People at the top of a power structure isnt anything new. Its existed as long as there has been a power structure. Nor did I say it passes evenly from one hand to the next. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Having a boogey man to blame everything on doesnt even resemble critical thinking. It resembles a way of alleviating yourself of finding ways to better your own life.
 
The problem with cutting food stamps is they are not the welfare problem. Yes, the SNAP program should be a bit more restrictive in what foods they allow people to purchase, they do not give out cash benefits and are not even close to being abused like the TANF and SSD areas of public welfare. All you can buy with SNAP is food. You do not even get a lot to buy food with as 200 dollars a month is hugely restrictive for a person with no alternative. I also should note that SNAP is actually relatable to the farming industry of america as the benefits directly contribute to the demand for the products of the agricultural areas of our nation. When you cut food stamps you are cutting actual commerce for our farmers along with distribution and retail areas of our food industry. In this case it is relevant to the bill.
 
People at the top of a power structure isnt anything new. Its existed as long as there has been a power structure. Nor did I say it passes evenly from one hand to the next. Not everything is a conspiracy.

Having a boogey man to blame everything on doesnt even resemble critical thinking. It resembles a way of alleviating yourself of finding ways to better your own life.

You imply that everyone should want to participate in a systematic plunder of the planet and measure their success in dollars/pesos/euros/yen etc. Some want to participate in the greening of the planet and that is not compatible with contemporary corporatism on this planet.
 
Did cellphones exist when Reagan was President? :2wave:

No, but telephones did. The switch to cell phones from landlines under this program happened under Bush. I guess Republicans do support entitlements!
 
No, but telephones did. The switch to cell phones from landlines under this program happened under Bush. I guess Republicans do support entitlements!

Yes they do, but you'll never hear a liberal give them credit for it; just like they always blame the GOP for wanting to kill SS but Reagan was the one who saved it :2wave:
 
Welfare and food stamps were strongly implemented after the great depression since people would literally starve to death , before Regan .
 
You imply that everyone should want to participate in a systematic plunder of the planet and measure their success in dollars/pesos/euros/yen etc. Some want to participate in the greening of the planet and that is not compatible with contemporary corporatism on this planet.

Except the 1% control that movement, too. Check Al Gore's net worth, it tells a story of green investment and corporatism that coincides remarkably with what you say you're against.
 
Except the 1% control that movement, too. Check Al Gore's net worth, it tells a story of green investment and corporatism that coincides remarkably with what you say you're against.


I didn't say anything about Al Gore. You did.
 
You imply that everyone should want to participate in a systematic plunder of the planet and measure their success in dollars/pesos/euros/yen etc. Some want to participate in the greening of the planet and that is not compatible with contemporary corporatism on this planet.

I didn't say anything about Al Gore. You did.

"Greening the planet" leads to a 1% as well, just a different one and not one that is particularly as concerned about greening the planet as greening their bank accounts.
 
"Greening the planet" leads to a 1% as well, just a different one and not one that is particularly as concerned about greening the planet as greening their bank accounts.

That's a rationale and rationales are not the result of logic and facts, just rationalizations. Poor practice and the fodder of the intellectual impersonators, or so I have been told, eh?
 
That's a rationale and rationales are not the result of logic and facts, just rationalizations. Poor practice and the fodder of the intellectual impersonators, or so I have been told, eh?

I don't even reply to most of these irrationals - for obvious reasons.
 
That's a rationale and rationales are not the result of logic and facts, just rationalizations. Poor practice and the fodder of the intellectual impersonators, or so I have been told, eh?

Not a rationale, but a realization that corruption and those that gain power from it exist anywhere. Being for greening the earth doesnt automatically make someone one of the good guys---as you heavily hinted. There are a host of people that take advantage of the green energy movement to line their pockets and push the green agenda for their own reasons and not altruistic ones. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
 
Back
Top Bottom