Skip to comments.White House threatens veto of House farm bill
Posted on 06/17/2013 5:12:22 PM PDT by Olog-hai
The White House is threatening to veto the House version of a massive, five-year farm bill, saying food stamp cuts included in the legislation could leave some Americans hungry.
The House is preparing to consider the bill this week. The legislation would cut $2 billion annually, or around 3 percent, from food stamps and make it harder for some people to qualify for the program. Food stamps, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, cost almost $80 billion last year, twice the amount it cost five years ago.
The Senate passed its version of the farm bill last week with only a fifth of the amount of those cuts, or about $400 million a year, with the support of the administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Must not be enough money in it for the ‘RAT politicians.
Hell we're just two people with a 50' X 35' garden and when it's harvest time, we're cannin' our ASSES off.
ALMOST gets us through the winter, but hey ... We ain't farmers ... just folks.
Every government program is drowning in graft and corruption. The freeloaders from all over the world are sucking us dry.
80% of the farm bill goes to food stamps instead of aid to farmers. Farmers should just quit working for a year or two and let city folk raise the food for their families.
This is the point of food stamps -- to 'move' food. This is why this program is in the Dept of Agriculture -- it is a program to help farmers sell food.
He’s mean...They’ll have nothing left for the casino and liquor store.
What happens if he vetoes it-—The House calls his bluff , stops the funding, and doesn’t bother to bring it up again?
Place the blame directly on the veto./
Soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream are food items and are therefore eligible items
Seafood, steak, and bakery cakes are also food items and are therefore eligible items
Since the current definition of food is a specific part of the Act, any change to this definition would require action by a member of Congress. Several times in the history of SNAP, Congress had considered placing limits on the types of food that could be purchased with program benefits. However, they concluded that designating foods as luxury or non-nutritious would be administratively costly and burdensome.
I’ve always wondered how a state like Iowa could vote for Obama. But it seems that most farmers are every bit the parasites that Holder’s people are.
From price supports to ethanol to illegal immigrants, the farmers seem to hate free enterprise, preferring rent-seeking instead.
Food stamps cuts...what b.s.!
Boehner isn’t cutting govt spending. The Regime is smoking dope.
If Obama can’t buy his popularity, he doesn’t have any...
No, the cuts will impair 0bama’s ability to hoover purchasing pattern data from poor people
These people do not have alot of credabilty.
This is the point of food stamps — to ‘move’ food.
Great! Go ahead and veto it then eliminate the entire Department of Agriculture. American farmers can take care of themselves.
“What happens if he vetoes it-The House calls his bluff , stops the funding, and doesnt bother to bring it up again?”
You are exactly right and the Republicans should let him veto it and then not bring forward another bill, effectively defunding and shutting down the Department of Agriculture which we do not need. However, Republicans are on the take from Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, and other heavily subsidized agribusiness multinationals. They will cave to the Democrats on food stamps before they will allow the agriculture subsidies to their corporate benefactors to go away.
Expect Boehner and his team to “compromise” and add to food stamp spending and whatever else Obama wants to add to the bill.
Instead of designating luxury foods, they should simply designate a few ‘staples’ that are permitted for purchase—and limit the scope of the program to that.
Beans, rice, cabbage, squash, milk. etc.
Good. Veto the farm bill, Barry. It would be a positive start. Oh, wait...what am I thinking?
You are correct-—of course.
But wouldn’t it be great to see it happen?
Today I am ashamed to be Republican.
I am not shamed to stand for what Republicans once stood for just ashamed for their cowardice and greed they now stand for. Selling our country out in a hope that 10% of these illegals and entitlement low-info voters will vote for them.