Activism Discussion: Hungry Kids, Greedy Farmers

Hungry Kids, Greedy Farmers
Posts: 31

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)

MrPepper11
2005-07-25 11:50:38 EST
washingtonpost.com
July 25, 2005

Hungry Kids, Greedy Farmers

THE BUSH administration took a commendable step this year when it
proposed trimming farm programs by $9 billion over the next five years.
Anyone who's watched the farm lobby, its congressional enablers and the
administration's capitulations can guess what happened next. The
administration's $9 billion was whittled to $3 billion, with hardly a
peep of protest from the we-must-clamp-down-on-wasteful-spending types.
Now, the all too predictable round two of this budgetary drama is about
to unfold. As the Senate and House agriculture committees figure out
how to parcel out those cuts, the brazen farm lobby is arguing that the
panels should take more out of food stamps than farm subsidies.

Back when he produced his budget, President Bush had proposed trimming
$600 million from food stamps over the next five years, about 7 percent
of the total suggested agriculture cuts. Whether such reductions are
warranted is, at the very least, open to debate. The administration
would eliminate food stamps for about 300,000 recipients whose income
or assets slightly exceed eligibility limits but whose high living
expenses put them below poverty level -- hardly flagrant examples of
wasteful government spending.

But the discussion has moved beyond whether to boot these people from
the program to whether the cuts should be even larger. Farm lobbyists
have proposed that the $3 billion in required cuts be shared
proportionately by all agriculture programs. Under this scheme the
program would take a $1.7 billion hit.

This faux fairness is hard to swallow. We don't exactly recall the farm
lobby volunteering for shared suffering when the food stamps program
was cut by almost $28 billion over six years as part of the 1996
welfare reform law. Nor do we remember it offering a proportional slice
of the bounty when lawmakers ladled out $80 billion over 10 years in
the 2002 farm bill -- of which 71 percent went to farm subsidies and
just 9 percent to increases in food stamps.

Thankfully, this ploy is meeting with some resistance in Congress. In
the Senate, Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has
indicated he wants to keep the food stamp cuts to the level the
president originally recommended. "We're going to help balance the
budget in this country once again, but I will not let that happen at
the expense of the food stamp program," Mr. Chambliss told Georgia
Public Radio. Good for him.

On the House side, though, the situation is dicier: Agriculture
Committee Chairman Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), no fan of the food
stamps program, appears eager for bigger reductions. Meanwhile, one
might ask: Where are the Democrats?

The 24 million Americans on food stamps get average benefits of less
than $1 per meal. About 80 percent of the benefits go to families with
children, and the rest go to elderly or disabled people. Mr. Bush had
proposed capping farm payments at $250,000 a year and closing loopholes
that allow some farmers to collect well over $1 million from the
federal government. For any lawmaker, of any party, to choose farm
subsidies over hungry children would be an unconscionable inversion of
the proper priorities.


Joto_Neisan
2005-07-25 12:15:26 EST
Greedy homosexuals you mean,. Since they have no kids they can spend
all their income on their vile habits -- pure greed and perversion.


Wm James
2005-07-27 15:57:03 EST
On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:

>The 24 million Americans on food stamps get average benefits of less
>than $1 per meal. About 80 percent of the benefits go to families with
>children, and the rest go to elderly or disabled people. Mr. Bush had
>proposed capping farm payments at $250,000 a year and closing loopholes
>that allow some farmers to collect well over $1 million from the
>federal government. For any lawmaker, of any party, to choose farm
>subsidies over hungry children would be an unconscionable inversion of
>the proper priorities.

If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
work.

At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
stamps and welfare entirely.

William R. James


J.C.
2005-07-27 16:09:25 EST

"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>
> >The 24 million Americans on food stamps get average benefits of less
> >than $1 per meal. About 80 percent of the benefits go to families with
> >children, and the rest go to elderly or disabled people. Mr. Bush had
> >proposed capping farm payments at $250,000 a year and closing loopholes
> >that allow some farmers to collect well over $1 million from the
> >federal government. For any lawmaker, of any party, to choose farm
> >subsidies over hungry children would be an unconscionable inversion of
> >the proper priorities.
>
> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
> work.
>
> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
> stamps and welfare entirely.
>
> William R. James
>

People only hear about the farm subsidies and the farms that get them. We
that live on the chemical free farms and sell to the local markets don't get
subsidies. There are several million of us. There are only about 900
corporate farms. Those are the ones getting the handouts. They are not
farmers. They are agribusinesses owned by lawyers and bankers and
accountants.

If people are tired of farm subsidies, buy from local farmers and put those
crooks out of business for good. Quit taking dope by proxy. That's what you
do when you buy from the corporate agribusinesses. It's like drinking a
molotov cocktail 3 times a day.


--
Make it just one gnat to email.

J.C.




B E T A
2005-07-27 16:21:21 EST
Wm James wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The 24 million Americans on food stamps get average benefits of less
>>than $1 per meal. About 80 percent of the benefits go to families with
>>children, and the rest go to elderly or disabled people. Mr. Bush had
>>proposed capping farm payments at $250,000 a year and closing loopholes
>>that allow some farmers to collect well over $1 million from the
>>federal government. For any lawmaker, of any party, to choose farm
>>subsidies over hungry children would be an unconscionable inversion of
>>the proper priorities.
>
>
> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
> work.
>
> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
> stamps and welfare entirely.
>
> William R. James
>

<G>

George Z. Bush
2005-07-27 16:41:58 EST

"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>
> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
> work.
>
> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
> stamps and welfare entirely.

Your compassion for your fellow human beings in need is underwhelming not to
mention unchristian.

George Z.



Dick Zielinski
2005-07-27 20:46:53 EST
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:41:58 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
<*h@charter.net.nospam> wrote:

>
>"Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>>
>> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
>> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
>> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
>> work.
>>
>> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
>> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
>> stamps and welfare entirely.
>
>Your compassion for your fellow human beings in need is underwhelming not to
>mention unchristian.
>
>George Z.
>
Screw the Christians... If you're so pious, you feed the bums.
What the man said is absolutely true.

Dick


Jerry Okamura
2005-07-27 21:07:45 EST

"J.C." <gnatsflat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:VRRFe.695922$3V6.574191@fe04.news.easynews.com...
>
> "Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
> news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The 24 million Americans on food stamps get average benefits of less
>> >than $1 per meal. About 80 percent of the benefits go to families with
>> >children, and the rest go to elderly or disabled people. Mr. Bush had
>> >proposed capping farm payments at $250,000 a year and closing loopholes
>> >that allow some farmers to collect well over $1 million from the
>> >federal government. For any lawmaker, of any party, to choose farm
>> >subsidies over hungry children would be an unconscionable inversion of
>> >the proper priorities.
>>
>> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
>> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
>> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
>> work.
>>
>> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
>> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
>> stamps and welfare entirely.
>>
>> William R. James
>>
>
> People only hear about the farm subsidies and the farms that get them. We
> that live on the chemical free farms and sell to the local markets don't
> get
> subsidies. There are several million of us. There are only about 900
> corporate farms. Those are the ones getting the handouts. They are not
> farmers. They are agribusinesses owned by lawyers and bankers and
> accountants.
>
> If people are tired of farm subsidies, buy from local farmers and put
> those
> crooks out of business for good. Quit taking dope by proxy. That's what
> you
> do when you buy from the corporate agribusinesses. It's like drinking a
> molotov cocktail 3 times a day.
>
>
When you sell your products at an equal price as those produced by the large
farmers, then perrhaps I will consider buying your products. But until that
happens, I will not subsidize your lifestyle at the sacrifice of my
lifestyle.



Jerry Okamura
2005-07-27 21:10:28 EST

"George Z. Bush" <georgezbush@charter.net.nospam> wrote in message
news:rkSFe.32885$Iv5.22342@fe02.lga...
>
> "Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
> news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>>
>> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
>> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
>> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
>> work.
>>
>> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
>> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
>> stamps and welfare entirely.
>
> Your compassion for your fellow human beings in need is underwhelming not
> to mention unchristian.
>
Compassion? What does the term mean? I can understand helping someone who
through no fault of their own, needs the help of society. But I fail to see
how we are very compasionate when we give people an excuse to make "choices"
that resulted in their being in the position they are in.



George Z. Bush
2005-07-28 00:14:04 EST
Dick Zielinski wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:41:58 -0400, "George Z. Bush"
> <georgezbush@charter.net.nospam> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Wm James" <wrjames.remove@spamreaper.org> wrote in message
>> news:cgpfe1dgtcvoic5eapdj2da7ker647jikm@4ax.com...
>>> On 25 Jul 2005 08:50:38 -0700, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If they can't feed their kids, they shouldn't have kids. If they wont
>>> feed their kids, then put the kids up for adoption and let the parents
>>> starve until they get hungry enough to get off their butts and go to
>>> work.
>>>
>>> At least farmers produce something of value. All the welfare bums
>>> produce is more mouths for the taxpayers to feed. Eliminate food
>>> stamps and welfare entirely.
>>
>> Your compassion for your fellow human beings in need is underwhelming not to
>> mention unchristian.
>>
>> George Z.
>>
> Screw the Christians... If you're so pious, you feed the bums.
> What the man said is absolutely true.
>
> Dick

I, like you, am neither a Christian nor am I pious. However, I do have some
compassion for those not as lucky as I am even to the point of helping them out
somewhat. Anyway, it sounds to me like you and that other uncompassionate
schmuck make a matched set and you deserve each others company. You'll
undoubtedly be very happy together and will end up as the richest men in the
cemetary.

George Z.


Page: 1 2 3 4   Next  (First | Last)


2021 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron