- Joined
- Mar 20, 2011
- Messages
- 10,090
- Reaction score
- 5,057
- Location
- wny
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...-cuts-could-save-food-stamps-in-the-farm-bill
"House Republicans say nutrition programs will be broken out and included in a separate, stand-alone bill and may be cut as deeply as they were in the earlier, failed version of the Farm Bill." "The House Farm Bill would also expand subsidies for agriculture by nearly $9 billion at a time when the farm sector is historically strong, especially compared to the rest of the economy, and makes these subsidies permanent law. Currently, they have to be reauthorized every five years.
The "vote is the latest smoking gun that the House majority isn't truly interested in deficit reduction," said Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, in a statement. "They're interested in supporting special interest groups over hungry Americans." "Billions of dollars could be saved by cutting subsidies while still protecting vital nutrition programs for the poor, if policymakers are willing to make them. Cuts to wasteful agribusiness subsidies would save the American people money while allowing Congress to safeguard food stamps during these weak economic times. Food stamps provide vital food assistance to those who have lost their jobs, who labor in low-wage positions, or who live on a fixed income. At the same time, a more-than-adequate agricultural safety net could continue to be funded. However, doing so would require many in the House majority to drop their aversion to compromise. And members of both parties would have to ignore misinformation and pressure from the crop insurance lobby."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...-cuts-could-save-food-stamps-in-the-farm-bill
Yes, indeedy. The Corporate welfare portion of the bill goes right through.
Why not poverty people's welfare?
Is Corporate welfare OK?
Isn't this backwards?
"House Republicans say nutrition programs will be broken out and included in a separate, stand-alone bill and may be cut as deeply as they were in the earlier, failed version of the Farm Bill." "The House Farm Bill would also expand subsidies for agriculture by nearly $9 billion at a time when the farm sector is historically strong, especially compared to the rest of the economy, and makes these subsidies permanent law. Currently, they have to be reauthorized every five years.
The "vote is the latest smoking gun that the House majority isn't truly interested in deficit reduction," said Joel Berg, executive director of the New York City Coalition Against Hunger, in a statement. "They're interested in supporting special interest groups over hungry Americans." "Billions of dollars could be saved by cutting subsidies while still protecting vital nutrition programs for the poor, if policymakers are willing to make them. Cuts to wasteful agribusiness subsidies would save the American people money while allowing Congress to safeguard food stamps during these weak economic times. Food stamps provide vital food assistance to those who have lost their jobs, who labor in low-wage positions, or who live on a fixed income. At the same time, a more-than-adequate agricultural safety net could continue to be funded. However, doing so would require many in the House majority to drop their aversion to compromise. And members of both parties would have to ignore misinformation and pressure from the crop insurance lobby."
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/...-cuts-could-save-food-stamps-in-the-farm-bill
Yes, indeedy. The Corporate welfare portion of the bill goes right through.
Why not poverty people's welfare?
Is Corporate welfare OK?
Isn't this backwards?
Last edited: