End Times and Current Events
August 12, 2020, 07:04:59 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Farm Bill Rejected By House

Shoutbox
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
September 14, 2017, 04:31:26 am Christian40 says: i have thought that i'm reaping from past sins then my life has been impacted in ways from having non believers in my ancestry.
September 11, 2017, 06:59:33 am Psalm 51:17 says: The law of reaping and sowing. It's amazing how God's mercy and longsuffering has hovered over America so long. (ie, the infrastructure is very bad here b/c for many years, they were grossly underspent on. 1st Tim 6:10, the god of materialism has its roots firmly in the West) And remember once upon a time ago when shacking up b/w straight couples drew shock awe?

Exodus 20:5  Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Farm Bill Rejected By House  (Read 582 times)
Kilika
Guest
« on: June 20, 2013, 03:38:29 pm »

And no mention of anything about what was in that thing, but food stamps and proposed work requirements for food stamp recipients.

(I wanted to add this to other farm bill articles to show what they failed to mention, but can't seem to locate a thread at the moment)

http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-farm-bill-62-180541628.html

Quote
House rejects farm bill, 62 Republicans vote no

House rejects massive farm bill, that would have cut food stamps; 62 Republicans vote no

Associated Press By Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press | Associated Press – 19 mins ago
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2013, 04:21:12 pm »

I'm not familiar with this bill, to be honest, but prior media reports showed the House would support it.

I know both political parties are merely one and the same, but nonetheless only a small handful of GOP members voted against it?

Again, surprised...
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2013, 04:36:42 pm »

More from the news article...

Quote
The bill also suffered from lack of Democratic support necessary for the traditionally bipartisan farm bill to pass. Only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the legislation after many said the food stamp cuts could remove as many as 2 million needy recipients from the rolls. The addition of the optional state work requirements by Republican amendment just before final passage turned away many remaining Democratic votes.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., and No. 2 Democrat Steny Hoyer of Maryland, both of whom voted for the bill, immediately took to the House floor and blamed the other's party for the defeat.

Cantor said it was a "disappointing day" and that Democrats had been a "disappointing player."

Hoyer suggested that Republicans voted for the food stamp work requirements to tank the bill.

"What happened today is you turned a bipartisan bill, necessary for our farmers, necessary for our consumers, necessary for the people of America, that many of us would have supported, and you turned it into a partisan bill," he said.

The Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the farm bill last week, with about $2.4 billion a year in overall cuts and a $400 million annual decrease in food stamps — one-fifth of the House bill's food stamp cuts. The White House was supportive of the Senate version but had issued a veto threat of the House bill.

If the two chambers cannot come together on a bill, farm-state lawmakers could push for an extension of the 2008 farm bill that expires in September or negotiate a new bill with the Senate and try again.

Some conservatives have suggested separating the farm programs and the food stamps into separate bills. Farm-state lawmakers have for decades added food stamps to farm bills to garner urban votes for the rural bill. But that marriage has made passage harder this year.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said Thursday that the committee is assessing all its options and will continue its work in the "near future."

Just before the vote, Lucas pleaded with his colleagues' support, saying that if the measure didn't pass people would use it as an example of a dysfunctional Congress.

"If it fails today I can't guarantee you'll see in this Congress another attempt," he said.

So the Dem-lead Senate passes it, but the GOP-lead House didn't, largely b/c of the lack of GOP votes and the Dems not voting for it?

Pt being that it just seems like more Hegelian Dialectic/play-the-blame-game, etc mumble-jumble nonsense that Congress almost always does to end up getting what they want in the long run. Remember the bank bailout bill in 2008 when it was initially defeated by the House? Next thing everyone knew, Henry Paulson started making threats of Martial Law, and voila the bank bailout bill passed through with ease - the part where it was initially defeated by the House was probably show and tell as well to trigger Paulson's antics.

But we'll see where this Farm Bill goes. "let not your hearts be troubled..."
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2013, 08:23:33 am »

Again, I know everything we see on Capitol Hill is nothing more than a dog and pony show(good vs evil, where you pick the good side of your choice), but nonetheless at the same time we can see how the world's powers operates through what scripture says.

Looks like John Boehner(House Speaker) is getting all the blame for this, and not Obama nor his fellow "Democrats". But again, all of this is nothing more than a puppet show to get the citizens of the country distracted one way.

House's rejection of farm bill leaves few options
http://news.yahoo.com/houses-rejection-farm-bill-leaves-few-options-075057840.html
6/21/13
Quote
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House's broad rejection of a massive farm bill could signal a shift in the way Congress views agriculture policy.

Farm issues once had enormous clout on Capitol Hill, but the healthy agriculture economy and an increased interest in cutting spending have worked against farm-state lawmakers who are now trying to push a farm bill through for a third year in a row.

The five-year, half-trillion dollar measure would have expanded some subsidies while saving about $4 billion annually overall, including a 3 percent cut in the almost $80 billion-a-year food stamp program. The vote Thursday was 234-195 against the bill, with 62 Republicans voting "no," arguing it was too expensive.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., said after the vote that the committee is assessing its options.

But just before the vote, he signaled that he was not optimistic he would be able to get another bill to the floor.

"I can't guarantee you'll see in this Congress another attempt," he said.

Lucas and other rural lawmakers argue that a farm bill is needed to avert crises stemming from bad weather or price collapses. They could push for an extension of the 2008 farm bill, which expires in September, or negotiate a new bill with the Senate and try again. Some conservatives have suggested separating the farm programs from the food stamps into separate bills.

Lawmakers on the agriculture committees have for decades added food stamps to farm bills to garner urban votes. But that marriage has made passage harder this year.

Cont'd

Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2013, 08:31:20 am »

http://news.yahoo.com/house-gop-revolts-john-boehner-officially-no-control-192900400.html
6/20/13
The House GOP revolts: John Boehner officially has no control over his caucus

The speaker suffers another embarrassing defeat at the hands of his own party

In a stinging blow to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the House on Thursday voted down a five-year farm bill, with 62 Republicans siding against the party leadership and voting no.

By a vote of 234 to 195, the House defeated the measure, largely over objections to proposed cuts to food stamps. Democrats decried those cuts as too deep, while conservative Republicans who joined them said those cuts should have been much deeper.

The embarrassing defeat for Boehner comes one year after he opted to not even bring the massive, $940 billion measure to the floor for a vote because of Republican objections. The bill was thought to have had more bipartisan support this time around, and its defeat came as a surprise.

Boehner even took the unusual step of publicly backing the bill — to no avail. And to pour salt in the wound, the divisive food-stamp cuts that scuttled the legislation had been pushed by Boehner's top lieutenant, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Republicans tried to pin the blame for the bill's defeat on Democrats, saying they'd been banking on 40 promised votes from across the aisle that allegedly evaporated at the last moment; only 24 Democrats voted in favor of the bill. Yet as Roll Call pointed out, even with all 40 of those votes, the bill still would have failed.

Many pundits pointed to the defeat as further evidence that Boehner is a singularly ineffective speaker who cannot control the far right wing of his caucus. "House Republicans simply cannot be led by anyone at the moment," the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza observed.

"The majority party in the House should never — repeat NEVER — lose floor votes on major (or, really, minor) pieces of legislation," he said. "Republicans, literally, write the rules governing the debate — and, as the majority, must ensure that even in the worst case scenario that they can get the 'yeas' they need from their own side."

National Review's Daniel Foster concurred, saying Boehner had made a "tactical mistake" in forgetting that "the Honey Badger that is the House GOP don't care."

The fact is House Republicans remain untamable. This isn't the first — or fifth — time John Boehner has been dealt a surprise defeat on a floor vote. I don't think he's a bad Speaker, per se, but this caucus is unusually independent for a House majority, and the institutional levers that have traditionally afforded leadership great control over the herd have proven insufficient with this group." [National Review]

Remember, Boehner has been badly burned by his own party before. After much chest-thumping aimed at President Obama during last year's budget negotiations, he ultimately had to pull his "Plan B" budget bill last December for lack of Republican support. Once the new Congress convened in January, there were even concerns he'd get booted from the speakership.

Following the farm bill's defeat, Red State's Erick Erickson wondered if it was only a matter of time before Boehner lose his post.

Does John Boehner have any clout left after publicly saying he would take the rare act as Speaker of voting for the farm bill? Pasture time?
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 20, 2013

The farm bill defeat also underscored why Boehner has taken such a delicate approach toward the massive immigration bill winding through the Senate. Even though the bill is gaining strong bipartisan support in the upper chamber, it contains a pathway to citizenship loathed by many on the far right.

If Boehner couldn't get his party in line on a largely bipartisan farm bill, what are his odds of wrangling party members on a more controversial one to completely overhaul the immigration system?
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2013, 08:36:25 am »

^^ The Boehner article is political rhetoric, but just reading b/w the lines...it's as if the Illuminati media is trying to tip off their cards(trying to send a message) to the citizens - are they trying to tell us that these 2 political "parties" are working together quietly? Are they trying to hide other things from us?

Matthew 11:15  He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2013, 09:01:31 am »

The OP mentioned in another thread that instead of having farmers with big farms selling their food for profit to distributors, which would sell them to the markets(ie-Sams, Wal Mart, Albertsons, etc), everyone should individually grow their own gardens et al. BUT there's the love of money from these farmers.

OTOH, looks like there's a big friction going on b/w these farmers and Capitol Hill over what they want - and it could get worse...

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/06/21/agribusiness-lobbyists-pretty-upset-about-that-farm-bills-failure-right-about-now/
6/21/13
Agribusiness lobbyists pretty upset about that farm bill’s failure right about now

The House version of the farm bill that failed to glean the necessary votes to pass and move to conference with the Senate’s version on Thursday afternoon certainly might not have been the most watched or well-known piece of legislation hanging over the country, but the fact that it was unexpectedly thwarted was quite the dramatic turn of events on Capitol Hill.

The many farm and agribusiness lobbyists who were relying on the bill’s passage to safeguard the status quo and their countless specially interested, pork-tossing programs were shocked — righteously, indignantly shocked, I say! — and plan to continue to press the House leadership so that they can get theirs, ****, no matter how much market distortion and taxpayer money it costs the American economy and budget. Via The Hill:

Quote
“We were shocked. We were watching the vote on TV and in the final minutes were saying ‘what are they doing? This thing isn’t going to pass!” said one commodity group lobbyist.

“I’m shocked,” said another lobbyist. “Our job as agriculture is to go to the House and say Mr. Speaker what is your plan for getting this done?” …

Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said. …

The House bill was heavily backed by commodity groups, from rice and peanut producers in the South to corn, wheat and soy growers in the Midwest to the American Farm Bureau Federation and National Farmers Union. …

The gloom in the official statements from farm organizations was pervasive.

“Rather than pass a bill that reduces the deficit by $40 billion while meeting the commitments of a farm bill, the country was treated to more Washington dysfunction,” USA Rice Producers’ Group chairwoman Linda Raun said. “Patience in farm country is wearing thin.”

The heart bleeds.

The bill failed because of a number of Republicans’ insistence that the bill needed to make deeper cuts to both certain farm programs and food stamps (which, I would merely add, have grown about 70 percent in less than five years to an $80 billion/year program), which, when combined with a number of Democrats’ intransigence on allowing what they interpreted as too many, too draconian cuts to food stamps (by a little over $2 billion a year and adding work requirements, gasp!), took the bill down.

As one lobbyist put it, “I don’t know how you solve this. If you reduce the food stamp cuts to $16 billion how many Democrats do you gain, how many people do you lose?” One solution might be to end the marriage-of-convenience between food stamps and farm programs so that we can at least have a more transparent and honest debate about the wisdom of federal policy on both, except that neither lobbyists nor many lawmakers would care for that solution — it’s the very omnibus nature of the so-called farm bill that usually helps the farm bill’s spectacular awfulness to speed beneath the radar and garner both urban and rural votes.

It would seem that lawmakers are, for the moment, at an impasse — as Conn Carroll pointed out at the Washington Examiner, that doesn’t seem to bode well for the Senate’s immigration debate, does it?

Quote
After the Senate voted 66 to 27 to pass the Farm Bill two weeks ago, the House rejected the bill 234-195 yesterday. …

A majority of the House Republican Caucus will never vote for any bill that gives citizenship to those illegal immigrants already in the country. The only hope Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, ever had of moving amnesty through the House was on the backs of Democratic votes. After the Farm Bill, House Republican leaders are reassessing that strategy.

“I’d think that Democrats’ decision to sandbag us on the farm bill today makes it obvious how impractical it would be to rely on them for votes on immigration,” a GOP leadership aide told Roll Call.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2013, 12:28:49 pm »

Remember when GOP Scott Brown was elected Senator in MA to replace the recently deceased Ted Kennedy in a special election? At the time, everyone thought it put Obamacare legislation dead in the water b/c the Dems no longer had the 60 votes. Even the "truth movement" was buying into this and calling this a big victory(ie-there were "truth movement" people in MA getting people to vote for Brown).

Again, I know the whole GOP vs Dem thing is nothing but a puppet show, but point being that this is one of the tactics TPTB seems to use - they'll make you think draconian legislation is put away for good one minute when something like this happens to the "party" that is pushing it, but the next minute when pretty much everyone isn't looking, they'll slip it right under everyone's noses(ie-Obamacare eventually got passed a couple of months later with a mere 51 votes in the Senate, and Brown pretty much voted with Obama on a number of other pieces of legislation).

Same I potentially see with this one - they're trying to make everyone believe immigration reform might be put away for good b/c the GOP Congress couldn't pass this Farm Bill(after the Dem-lead Senate passed it). No, I'm not saying it will or won't pass, but nonetheless it's a good idea we don't count those chickens before their eggs are hatched!

Also - the fact that Rudy Guilliani(another globalist) was campaigning for Brown at the time should have raised red flags!

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/21/19074847-first-thoughts-what-the-farm-bills-defeat-tells-us-about-immigrations-chances?lite
6/21/13
First Thoughts: What the farm bill's defeat tells us about immigration's chances

By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Brooke Brower, NBC News

Quote
*** What the farm bill’s defeat tells us about immigration’s chances in the House: The farm bill’s surprising defeat in the House yesterday was a stinging defeat for Speaker John Boehner and the GOP leadership, as well as another sign of the dysfunction on Capitol Hill. And the legislation’s defeat reminds us of some important lessons, especially when it comes to how the House might handle the immigration legislation the Senate is debating. First, conservative outside groups -- like Heritage Action and Club for Growth -- are almost as powerful (maybe more so) than GOP leaders. They opposed the farm bill, and 62 Republicans voted against it. Second, when those groups are part of the opposition, that means the GOP leadership needs to find Democratic votes for passage. Yesterday, just 24 Democrats supported the farm bill due in large part because the House legislation cut the food-stamp program more than the already-passed Senate bill did and because the GOP added an amendment applying welfare-work requirements for food stamps; the White House had also issued a veto threat. In other words, the so-called “Hastert Rule” -- only bringing legislation to the floor that has support from a majority of the majority -- goes so far; if enough Republicans are going to vote against legislation, then they have to be replaced by Democratic votes. Third and perhaps most importantly, the House is so unpredictable. Yesterday, in fact, was hardly the first time that Republican leaders thought they had the votes to pass something but ultimately didn’t. They can’t count votes.

Cont'd

Well - will stop right there after this first paragraph - look how much confusion they throw at you. The GOP is (supposedly)known for wanting to cut welfare/food stamps(which this bill pretty much does - cutting down on giving out free lunches). But this bill gets voted down b/c of their own 62 GOP Congressmen AND powerful GOP lobbyists, the same ones that support cutting welfare/food stamps?

And even if the House did pass it, Obama was going to likely veto it, so what was the big deal?

Again, this whole thing may just have been a sideshow to intensify the Hegelian Dialectic talk over immigration reform. Or it may have been just a distraction while this same Capitol Hill quietly pushes immigration reform.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2013, 02:11:41 pm »

Quote
Lawmakers on the House Agriculture Committee were holding calls and frantic closed-door meetings with lobbyists to discuss their next moves, sources said.

How is that not illegal? Is not that giving select people preferential treatment? They get audience with these politicians to "discuss their next moves", yet me as a citizen, who can't afford the time on a parking meter in DC, get that same face time? Yeah, right!  Roll Eyes

It would one thing if we all were tossed into a big barrel, individual citizens along with corporate professionals, and each had an equal soapbox to approach government, but the common person doesn't even merit being placed in the barrel, as far as Washington is concerned.

Wickedness, and just pure evil.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: June 22, 2013, 07:32:07 pm »

http://news.yahoo.com/u-likely-extend-old-farm-law-house-derails-231104182.html
6/21/13
U.S. likely to extend old farm law after House derails new bill

By Charles Abbott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Congress is headed for a second stop-gap extension of current farm law if Republican leaders in the House of Representatives cannot get new legislation back on track after a stunning defeat.

Farm lobbyists and analysts on Friday said a short-term extension was the easiest resolution of the previous day's legislative chaos, which derailed Republican plans for major reform to crop subsidies and food stamps.

As the debate rolls on, there will be no impact on food stamps, which account for about 75 percent of farm bill spending, and crop insurance, now the largest part of the safety net for farmers.

Both programs are permanently authorized and would stay in operation if the current law is allowed to lapse, funded via annual appropriations bills.

On Thursday, the House, in an unprecedented step, defeated the five-year, $500 billion bill after Republican leaders were unable to get the votes they expected from fiscally conservative members of their party's Tea Party wing.

Congress is months late in writing a new farm law, broad-spectrum legislation that governs crop subsidies, public nutrition, soil conservation, international food aid, rural development and agricultural research programs.

After an emergency extension at the end of 2012 that runs through September 30, the farm law would revert to an underlying "permanent" 1949 law if new action is not taken.

Among other outcomes, milk prices in the grocery store would double due to the high commodity prices guaranteed to farmers by the 1949 law. That scenario, nicknamed the "Dairy Cliff," sparked lawmakers into action at the end of 2012.

Although the Democratic-run U.S. Senate passed its farm bill by a bipartisan 66-27 vote last week, the House, with its Republican majority, split into three factions on Thursday, denying a majority of votes for a new farm bill. The House version of the bill was defeated, 234-195.

Tea Party Republicans broke ranks with their leaders - notably Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor - to vote against the bill because they wanted deeper cuts. Democrats opposed the bill's hefty cuts to food stamps.

"They (Republican leaders) just have no path forward," said Ferd Hoefner of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, a small-farm advocate.

He said an extension of the 2008 law or passage of a "mini farm bill" with only a few changes from 2008 law were the most likely result "until the politics of the country calm down."

Farm lobbyists also viewed an extension as the simplest option.

There are also several other potential routes forward, including reviving the current House bill or using the Senate version as a vehicle to write a final compromise version of the farm law.

But any of these scenarios eventually would require a majority vote in the House, and that looks doubtful after Thursday's chaos.

"That's a Speaker question," said analyst Mark McMinimy of Guggenheim Partners, referring to Boehner. A spokesman for Cantor, meanwhile, said Republican leaders have not decided on a next step.

McMinimy said top Republicans might look for modifications to swing enough votes to the bill to pass it. But even if the original House bill were to pass, there would have to be a conference to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill, followed by another vote in each chamber.

Boehner and Cantor voted for the bill, which included lower limits on farm subsidies and the biggest cut in food stamps in a generation. But one-fourth of House Republicans voted against it, including Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, a former Agriculture Committee chairman.

The 62 Tea Party-influenced Republicans joined 172 Democrats to ensure the stunning defeat of the bill. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the outcome "amateur hour" for Republicans because of their inability to work together.

"They are going to have to make a decision on how to proceed," said Massachusetts Democrat Jim McGovern, who led the fight against food stamp cuts. McGovern said Republican leaders either must compromise with Democrats or try to satisfy Tea Party Republicans who "don't believe in the public sector."

Fiscal conservatives such as Republican Marlin Stutzman of Indiana say the farm bill should be split into two bills, on covering farm programs and the other covering food stamps. They want big budget cuts and reforms in Agriculture Department programs, especially food stamps.

Liberal-leaning and conservative groups each claimed victory from the failed farm bill vote.

Sallie James of the libertarian Cato Institute said defeat of the farm bill showed the demise of the coalition between rural and urban lawmakers that carried such legislation to passage in the past.

The "key to ending the role of government in agriculture once and for all," James said, would be repeal of the 1949 "permanent" farm law. The threat of reverting to the high supports and production controls of the 1949 law often motivates Congress to pass a farm bill.

(Reporting by Charles Abbott, editing by Ros Krasny and David Gregorio)
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2013, 04:11:22 am »

Quote
As the debate rolls on, there will be no impact on food stamps, which account for about 75 percent of farm bill spending, and crop insurance, now the largest part of the safety net for farmers.

Both programs are permanently authorized and would stay in operation if the current law is allowed to lapse, funded via annual appropriations bills.

And there you go! Stuff like that is why this country is financially in trouble. Who in their right mind would make such things permanent? Thieves.

What happen to "free enterprise"? If a farmer cannot make it, they need to get out of the farming business.

It's all about "commercial" farming anyway. It props up larger farms and agri-business. Doesn't have a single thing to do with the family farm, otherwise, with all that free federal cash, no family farm should be failing and foreclosing, but they are, while corporate farms are doing just fine.

Quote
The "key to ending the role of government in agriculture once and for all," James said, would be repeal of the 1949 "permanent" farm law.

I agree. Never should have been passed in the first place.

But if they tried that, the corporate farm lobby would lose their minds, payments under the table would stop, and politicians will have none of that!

Policy won't change a wicked heart. Those people need to repent.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2013, 01:43:31 pm »

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/food-stamp-issue-derails-farm-bill-recipients-record-150015885.html
6/27/13
Food Stamp Issue Derails Farm Bill as Recipients at Record High

Last week's dramatic defeat of the farm bill in the House put a fresh emphasis on the issue of food stamps in the U.S., just as the number of recipients for the program sits at a record high.

The 195-234 vote against the $500 billion farm policy bill, a version of which the Senate passed earlier this month, came amid congressional disagreements regarding cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. Keen focus was placed on an amendment put forth by Republican Rep. Steve Southerland, which required beneficiaries to sign up for employment-training programs in order to continue receiving food stamps. Many Democrats, who may have been willing to OK the $20 billion in food-stamp cuts the House version included, balked at the amendment, and only 24 ultimately voted for passage of the bill. Another dysfunctional-family blame game between the GOP and Democrats ensued as the defeat provided a serious blow to House Speaker John Boehner.

What will happen next with the farm bill, which has been operating under rolling extensions since the the old bill's 2008 expiration, remains to be seen. But its failure to thrive in the face of the food-stamp fight comes as the number of U.S. citizens receiving this benefit, at 47.7 million as of March of this year, exceeds the entire population of Spain, the sixth-most-populous country in the European Union.

Enrollment in SNAP has soared by 70% in the past five years; the U.S. shelled out a record $74.6 billion on the program in 2012, more than double what was spent in 2008, when the financial crisis hit in full force toward the end of the year. The U.S. officially exited the Great Recession, which began in 2007, in June of 2009. Since then, the economy has experienced a slowly churning recovery — with plenty of hiccups — marked by an increase in payroll levels, a slow-and-steady housing comeback and a massive pop in equities that's been at least partially fueled by unprecedented monetary stimulus.

But amid the recovery, the U.S. has also seen an increase in poverty levels, which the Census Bureau puts at 15.9% of the total population, or close to 50 million citizens. The Census Bureau puts close to 50 million Americans, or 15.9% of the total population, at or below the poverty level. In 2008, that figure was 13.2% of the population. And, while the unemployment rate has fallen from 10.1% at its Great Recession peak to 7.6% in May, 11.8 million Americans still remain without work, while 4.4 million are among the long-term unemployed.

Along with a push from many states to encourage more eligible people to apply for the federally funded SNAP program, the rise in food-stamp recipients can also be traced to rules with roots in former President Bill Clinton's sweeping 1996 welfare overhaul. The rules allow for a slight relaxing in the income and asset tests for eligible food stamp recipients, meaning they can apply for such benefits before they wipe out all their savings and need even more assistance. The Obama administration encouraged states to ease these rules during the financial crisis, in an attempt to stem rising poverty rates in a critical economic hardship environment. So while the gross monthly income for an eligible household (with three members) must generally be at or below 130% of the poverty line (around $23,800 annually), and assets must typically not go above $3,250, exceptions can be made. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal article  interviewed a SNAP recipient who had more than $5,000 in savings but was still eligible for the program.

As the article points out, the relaxed rules are "one reason why SNAP appears to have evolved from a program that rose and fell with the unemployment rate to a more permanent feature of the landscape."

Almost 75% of of SNAP beneficiaries are families with one or more child; more than one-quarter of homes that receive food stamps include senior citizens or people with disabilities. The typical SNAP recipient received about $133.41 in benefits per month in fiscal year 2012. -- Rebecca Stropoli
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 12, 2013, 05:38:09 am »

House Passes Republican Farm Bill Without Food Stamp Aid
11 July 2013, by Alan Bjerga & Derek Wallbank (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-11/house-passes-republican-farm-policy-bill-without-food-stamp-aid.html

Excerpt:

House Republicans passed a five-year U.S. farm-policy bill that retains subsidies to farmers and strips out food-stamp spending, costing it Democratic support.

The plan was approved today 216-208, with all Democrats and 12 Republicans in opposition.

The measure also would repeal underlying provisions that potentially would double milk prices when a new law isn’t passed.

The measure, scaled back after the House defeated a bill that included food stamps three weeks ago, is “extremely flawed,” said Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

“The bill passed by the House today is not a real farm bill and is an insult to rural America,” the Michigan Democrat, who will lead Senate negotiators to work out a final bill with House lawmakers, said in a statement after the vote.

The legislation, which benefits crop buyers such as Archer-Daniels-Midland and insurers including Wells Fargo, has been working through Congress for almost two years.

The Senate on June 10 passed S. 954, a plan that would cost $955 billion over a decade. Current law begins to expire Sept. 30.

The Obama administration has threatened to veto the farm measure that excludes food stamp and nutrition programs.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 12, 2013, 05:56:18 am »

They leave the subsidies, but take out food stamp and nutrition programs?

Can they be any more obvious with their support of the corporate farms and their efforts to slam individuals?

They aren't even really trying to hide their sold-out greed anymore.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2014, 09:40:54 am »

House Approves Farm Bill, Ending a 2-Year Impasse
1/29/14
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/us/politics/house-approves-farm-bill-ending-2-year-impasse.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill authorizing nearly $1 trillion in spending on farm subsidies and nutrition programs, setting the stage for final passage of a new five-year farm bill that has been stalled for more than two years.

Negotiators from the House and Senate spent several weeks working out their differences on issues in the legislation, including cuts to food stamps, income caps on farm subsidies and a price support program for dairy farmers. The bill is expected to save about $16.6 billion over the next 10 years.

The bill passed the House by a vote of 251 to 166. The Senate is expected to take up the bill later this week.

Compared with earlier, more contentious votes on the farm bill, Wednesday’s vote was largely bipartisan. Many Democrats who had opposed it because of cuts to the food stamp program supported it on Wednesday. A number of Republicans, including many who wanted deeper cuts to the food stamps, also voted for passage.

The House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the majority leader, Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, had endorsed the bill and urged Republicans to support it, even though they said they would have liked to see more changes
.

“This is legislation we can all be proud of because it fulfills the expectations the American people have of us,” said Representative Frank D. Lucas, Republican of Oklahoma, who led House efforts to pass the farm bill.

House leaders are now expected to turn their attention to other issues, including the Affordable Care Act, ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

It is unclear where the Obama administration stands on the new farm bill. Mr. Obama had signaled his opposition to any bill that cut food stamps and expanded crop insurance.

The new farm bill, which had been mired in partisan gridlock, makes fundamental changes to both nutrition and farm programs. It cuts the food stamp program by $8 billion, and about 850,000 households will lose about $90 in monthly benefits under the change
.

Anti-hunger groups called the food stamp cuts draconian. Feeding America, a coalition of food banks across the county, said the change would result in 34 lost meals per month for the affected households.

The bill does provide a $200 million increase in financing to food banks, though many said the money might not be enough to offset the expected surge in demand for food.

Farm programs were not spared from the cuts in the new bill. The most significant change to farm programs is the elimination of a subsidy known as direct payments. These payments, about $5 billion a year, are paid to farmers whether or not they grow crops, and the issue had become politically toxic over the last several years as farm income has risen to record levels.

The new bill cuts this subsidy and adds some of the money to the government-subsidized crop insurance. The government pays 62 percent of premiums for the $9 billion-a-year insurance program.

Lawmakers said the elimination of the direct payments ensured that only those who actually farm would receive subsidies and only when affected by a disaster such as drought. Budget watchdog groups called it a bait-and-switch, and said it replaced one subsidy with an even more generous one.

“This bill is so bad, they literally stripped reform from the title,” said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, based in Washington.

Although most agriculture groups generally supported the new farm bill, several were left disappointed.

The seafood industry expressed disappointment that a contentious seafood inspection program at the Agriculture Department remained in the bill, despite bipartisan efforts to repeal it. Meat and poultry industry groups also expressed their concern with the bill because it did not include language to delay a labeling program that requires retailers to list the country of origin of meat. The industry said the labeling was too costly.

The bill does not address the changes to the international food aid program sought by the Obama administration, but it does give an increase of about $80 million to the United States Agency for International Development to buy food closer to disaster areas, rather than shipping food from the United States.

Anti-hunger groups, including the World Food Program, support the proposal. Several environmental groups, such as Ducks Unlimited, also expressed their support for the new farm bill because it includes new soil and water conservation measures.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2014, 02:20:25 pm »

Another example of the feds dropping some new bill on the public just before a vote. This time it was only 48 hours and they voted in this thing. How is the public suppose to learn what's in a nearly 1000 page bill within 48 hours and then have time to respond? Can't happen and these thugs in Washington know it. They are expert at bundling bills together. That bill covers way too many things that should actually be voted on separately for better disclosure.

For instance, why is the following issue a part of a bill like this? This sounds more like something that the regulators would enforce as agency policy. Is a law on this needed? I'm thinking no, but more like a manufacturing license requirement as part of packing rules for food. When government officials want to make something law, I immediately raise an eyebrow, as it usually means somebody is wanting legal backing for their corporate agenda.

In this case, it appears that the protestors don't want the public to know where their inventory comes from. Why would they not want the public to know? The companies already know where, so what's the cost of putting a sticker, or an ink stamp on it like they do beef? I think we all know cost of labeling is not the reason they resist!

Quote
Meat and poultry industry groups also expressed their concern with the bill because it did not include language to delay a labeling program that requires retailers to list the country of origin of meat. The industry said the labeling was too costly
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: February 21, 2014, 11:37:49 am »

http://www.clarionproject.org/analysis/us-govt-gives-muslim-brotherhood-farm-subsidies
U.S. Gov't Gives Muslim Brotherhood 'Farm Subsidies'

The payments are just one of many examples of American taxpayer money being spent to benefit Islamist groups.

2/3/14

The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, has been given over $10,000 in farm subsidies since 1998. The payments are just another example of taxpayer money being spent to benefit Islamist groups.

Fox News reports that NAIT is being funded by 34 different government programs and receives subsidies for its two “agricultural” lands that are not being used for agricultural purposes. The report quotes an expert as assessing that NAIT’s activity in this regard is “probably legal,” as shocking as it seems.

NAIT was first identified as a Muslim Brotherhood front by the FBI in the 1980s. A declassified FBI memodocuments that a source inside the American Muslim Brotherhood said that NAIT is “under the direction and control of the IKHWAN[Muslim Brotherhood] in the United States has as its ultimate goal political control of all non-Islamic governments in the world.”

Another declassified FBI memo from 1987 states that NAIT is receiving money from Iran, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries and “many” of its leaders supported the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran. The FBI’s source reported on NAIT’s “support of JIHAD (a holy war) in the U.S.” and “support of terrorism in the U.S. to further the revolution.”

A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood document says its U.S. operations are “kind of a grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” It lists NAIT as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.”

In 2007, the U.S. government described NAIT as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity and labeled it an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism-financing trial. The designation was upheld in 2009 by a federal judge, but he ruled against the previous public disclosure of the designation. This has been repeatedly misreported, including in the Fox News report, as a lifting of the designation.

NAIT says it holds the titles to over 325 properties in 42 states. The Fox report states that NAIT uses Allied Asset Advisors, a company it owns and shares an address with, to buy mosques.

The subsidies to NAIT were sent to the Islamic Center of Central Missouri Mosque. The mosque’s constitution says it is “entrusted” with NAIT and officially affiliated with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim Students Association, two other groups with Muslim Brotherhood origins. Like NAIT, ISNA was also designated an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

According to Fox, the farm subsidies were temporarily halted between 2008 and 2011.

It cannot be argued that NAIT has shed its past extremism. One of its current trustees is Muzammil Siddiqi, a former president of ISNA. In 1996, while president of ISNA, he said Muslims “should participate in the [democratic] system to safeguard our interest and try to bring gradual change…We must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

In 2001, he even called for the brutal judicial system of Sharia to eventually be established in America. He said that Muslims are not required to follow Sharia’s criminal law when they live in a non-Muslim country, but “Once more people accept Islam, insha’llah, this will lead to the implementation of Sharia in all areas.”

NAIT isn’t the only radical group getting farm subsidies courtesy of American taxpayers. Last year, it was discovered that the Nation of Islam was awarded $103,539 between 2008 and 2011. It also got a $26,357 “community loan” when the Bush Administration was in office.

The funding went to a Nation of Islam charity named Three Years Economic Savings, even though its status with the Illinois Secretary of State is “not in good standing.” The charity also operates under the name of “Muhammad Farms” in Georgia and is listed at Louis Farrakhan’s address.

The Clarion Project also discovered that the U.S. Air Force is paying ISNA for advertisements in its magazine. A spokesperson for the Air Force confirmed to Clarion that $4,800 was spent on two ads to recruit Air Force chaplains. When Clarion provided the spokesperson with documentation about ISNA’s past and asked whether such payments would continue, the spokesperson said:

The Islamic Society of North America is one of many religious organizations recognized by the Department of Defense that satisfy the ecclesiastical requirements to endorse qualified religious ministry professionals to serve as chaplains within the Military Departments.”

Another example is the radical mosque, Dar al-Hijrah, that has significant links to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. Its current imam is an open supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and he preached in favor of violent jihad last year inside a Virginia high school.

In 2010, it was found that the Census Bureau was paying $23,000 per month since 2008 to rent space owned by the mosque. The total contract for the lease was $582,000 through 2010. The discovery prompted members of Congress to demand accountability.

The U.S. Debt Clock has the deficit at over $648 billion and the total debt at over $17 trillion. The Islamist cause is the last thing the U.S. government should be spending money on.
Report Spam   Logged
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #17 on: February 22, 2014, 04:05:21 am »

Quote
Fox News reports that NAIT is being funded by 34 different government programs and receives subsidies for its two “agricultural” lands that are not being used for agricultural purposes. The report quotes an expert as assessing that NAIT’s activity in this regard is “probably legal,” as shocking as it seems.

The newly signed into law Farm Bill stops that, allegedly. No subsidies unless you're trying to grow crops. No more outright subsidies for not growing.

But that won't stop the current admin from tossing cash at anything Muslim. The government is catering to the Islamic crowd plain and simple, for whatever reason. It's a fact, and there are those in government that will continue to do so, all through the sham of "religious exemption" and the "non-profit" cash machine system.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy